Beware the Sea Lion

I learned a new term recently. It can be a noun or a verb. One may encounter a "sea lion," or someone may "sea lion."

The term is drawn from a cartoon in the Wondermark series drawn by David Malki. I've included the image here for your interest.

When I encountered the cartoon, I knew that I had found an amazingly accurate description of a certain online persona.

This cartoon can be found at:  http://wondermark.com/1k62/ 

A sea lion is the sort of person who cannot allow a balloon to go unpricked. Seeing someone post something in public, the sea lion jumps into the conversation. However, the point is not to add anything to the conversation, it is to waste the time of the person who is making the comment.

To be clear, there are times that online conversations can be meaningful, but by definition, the sea lion is not interested in such conversations. Typically he is interested in a) proving himself smarter or more culturally enlightened than others, b) disrupting a conversation he disagrees with, without acknowledging that another person may simply have a different set of presuppositions, c) just generally being a nuisance all while pretending to be the truly mature and civil one, d) silencing speech that he disagrees with and which rely on a different worldview.

Sea lions are annoying, but they are simply a part of internet life. They can sometimes be confused with people who are legitimately asking questions about a topic that they know little about. Recognizing the difference (and avoiding being one) is important.

Some Characteristics of a Sea Lion

1. A sea lion typically recognizes that the comment was not necessarily about him, but chooses to engage it anyway. Some people simply have too much time on their hands, and being the vigilante of the Facebook wall or comments section seems to be their preferred disservice to the world. Never mind that the comment may have been made in jest, intended as a light hearted generalization, or be entirely tangential to the main point; the sea lion boldly goes where no one cares to hear his opinion.

2. A sea lion often plays dumb, attempting to get their victim to fall into a script that they have carefully crafted a rebuttal to. Online debates are often tedious and they tend to fall into certain patterns. College sophomores spend a great deal of time diagnosing those patterns and learning to rebut them so they can look smart in debates. Often the rebuttals are neither fair nor focused on the main point under debate. However, the sea lion is always ready for the unsuspecting fool to play along.

3. A sea lion is often characterized by attempting to move the argument back several steps or by refusing to accept an assumption the other parties have agreed upon. Rarely does the sea lion state that this is his tactic, but attempts to drag the conversation back to his own presuppositions. Often the sea lion is arguing about elementary level concepts when the conversation is on advanced topics that build on a common set of elementary assumptions already agreed upon.

4. Sometimes the sea lion is unaware he has presuppositions. There is an army of ignorant online warriors who seem to be unaware they have a worldview. All reasoning must be done on their terms, because they and only they have rightly reasoned from first principles to final conclusions. They represent truth and all difference in opinion represents a tainted deviation of their truth. This sort of sea lion asks the Christian to prove God when the Christian is debating theories of the atonement. (Let the Christian recognize that of course the atonement is silly and unnecessary if there is no God.) But the sea lion is oblivious that the faith assumption there is no God requires as much suspension of disbelief as any other faith assumption.

• Social Justice
• Book Review
• Ethics
• Review
• Christian Mind

5. A sea lion often takes being ignored or told off as "victory." The other parties couldn't face the crushing logic of the sea lion, therefore they banished him. More likely the sea lion is just a bore and was shushed or blocked for habitually trying to subvert conversations.

6. The sea lion assumes that if someone makes a comment, they must follow up if he replies. This is part of the narcissism of the sea lion. Being the sole mind in the universe and sole arbiter of truth, the sea lion assumes that justice entails dealing with his (often erroneous or ignorant) arguments.

7. The sea lion is usually prepared with links from friendly sources that support his position. (Often he selects his topics by the ones where he's found articles and studies that he can use as irrefutable support.) If the victim does not have rebutting sources at hand, then his argument can be dismissed as being unsupported (and likely unsupportable, of course). If the victim does have rebutting sources, these are dismissed as being hack science, paid for by the Koch brothers (or Soros, depending on the topic and side). The sea lion's sources are, of course, irrefutable because Science and Peer Review. If sources are used from a different field than the sea lion is prepared to defend, then these will be rejected as from a flawed discipline.

• October 2014 9
• November 2014 8
• December 2014 10
• January 2015 10
• February 2015 10
• March 2015 11
• April 2015 9
• May 2015 8
• June 2015 9
• July 2015 5
• August 2015 4
• September 2015 4
• October 2015 6
• November 2015 5
• December 2015 4
• January 2016 5
• February 2016 11
• March 2016 9
• April 2016 5
• May 2016 5
• June 2016 4
• July 2016 4
• August 2016 5
• September 2016 5
• October 2016 7
• November 2016 7
• December 2016 6
• January 2017 7
• February 2017 3
• March 2017 5
• April 2017 5
• May 2017 5
• June 2017 4
• July 2017 3
• August 2017 6
• September 2017 3
• October 2017 5
• November 2017 4
• December 2017 4
• January 2018 5
• February 2018 4
• March 2018 4
• April 2018 4
• May 2018 5
• June 2018 4
• July 2018 5
• August 2018 4
• September 2018 4
• October 2018 5
• November 2018 4
• December 2018 4
• January 2019 5
• February 2019 5
• March 2019 4
• April 2019 5
• May 2019 4
• June 2019 4
• July 2019 5
• August 2019 4
• September 2019 4
• October 2019 5
• November 2019 4
• December 2019 5
• January 2020 4
• February 2020 4
• March 2020 8
• April 2020 7
• May 2020 7
• June 2020 6
• July 2020 4
• August 2020 4
• September 2020 5
• October 2020 4
• November 2020 4
• December 2020 5
• January 2021 4
• February 2021 4
• March 2021 5
• April 2021 4
• May 2021 4
• June 2021 6
• July 2021 4
• August 2021 5
• September 2021 4
• October 2021 4
• November 2021 3
• December 2021 3
• January 2022 5
• February 2022 3
• March 2022 4
• April 2022 3
• May 2022 3
• June 2022 3
• July 2022 3
• August 2022 3
• September 2022 4
• October 2022 3
• November 2022 3
• December 2022 3
• January 2023 4
• February 2023 2
• March 2023 2
• April 2023 1
• May 2023 3
• June 2023 3
• July 2023 4
• August 2023 3
• September 2023 2
• October 2023 3
• November 2023 1
• December 2023 1
• January 2024 5
• February 2024 1
• March 2024 1
• April 2024 3
• June 2024 1
• August 2024 2
• September 2024 6
• October 2024 4
• November 2024 1
• April 2025 1

Dealing with the Sea Lion

There is no perfect way to deal with the sea lion. Often ignoring them is the best way. Blocking Uncle Bob is probably going to lead to tense times at the Thanksgiving table.

Sometimes the sea lion has a point, your argument may be flawed or in an inappropriate venue. (At this point, the person may actually not be a sea lion, so it's important to evaluate the pattern of the person's interactions.)

However, often the true purpose of the sea lion is to silence dissenting opinions. Often this is perceived as a part of social justice on the part of the sea lion. At its best it is a form of annoying thought-policing, at its worst, sea lioning turns into a form of harassment or bullying.

Sea lions are often attempting to raise the social costs of online interactions by being persistent, argumentative (though in their minds always civil), and pedantic. They are typically off topic or in the wrong forum, but they typically aren't the vitriolic troll.

Unfortunately, there is no good way to avoid all sea lions, except by not engaging in online speech that disagrees with them. That is exactly what they want.

Therefore, the best thing to do, it seems, is to speak well, use evidence appropriately, and ignore the sea lions until they go away. Very seldom do people change their minds based on online arguments (I have no support for this, but I know it to be true). I will venture to suggest that no sea lion has ever changed his mind based on an online debate, however much time the victim has wasted.

However, if someone has a peer reviewed study to show me, I might just change my mind.

Spammers at the Gates

Not long ago I got one of those spam e-mails in my inbox. I'm continually amazed at the implausibility of these e-mails. It makes me wonder if people are still falling for them. However, since I keep getting them, I have to believe that someone out there is still responding.

After the e-mail, which I've included for your interest and humor, there's a humorous video of someone who played along with an e-mail scam. At least one person is keeping the spammers busy.

Hello friend,

 I want to trust you with this confidential proposal. Before I continue, let me introduce myself to you, I am Col. Thomas Collins the commander of the Special N.A.T.O coalition force with the United Nation troops in Afghanistan, on war against terrorism. I was working with General Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of U.S and NATO forces in Afghanistan before he was replaced last June by another General David Petraeus. I am serving currently in a Taliban territory; a remote Village in Bamyan province to the bustling capital Kabul (CBC’s Doc Zone).

 Because of series of killing of England/United States troops in Afghanistan especially the shot down of UN helicopter that killed 30 American soldiers and 12 England Soldiers on the 5th of August 2013 and the five American soldiers who were killed by a bomb in Afghanistan onThursday last week. After this series of killing I and my colleague decided to share the money we recovered on our raids on terrorist’s camp in Afghanistan. I have now in my possession the sum of $16M (Sixteen million US Dollars).

 I have carefully packaged the money in a box, I have made contact with a friend who is working with the UNITED NATIONS RED CROSS here in Kabul. He will assist me move the consignment out of the trouble area down to your country, which is the only safer means of moving it out of this hell hole, he will deposit it with the United Nations Red Cross as a diplomatic luggage as I have told him that the luggage belongs to one of our soldier that died during the attack but before giving up he told me to make sure the luggage get to his family. He will deposit the consignment for safe keep and to make contacts for its proper use.

 So I need someone I can work with on trust and that is why I contacted you. So if you accept, I will put you forward as the beneficiary/owner of the funds and then the box shall be deposited on your name as the beneficiary and the Red Cross Agent will transfer the box to you anywhere in your city. I just need your acceptance and all is done. I have 100%  assurance that you will surely receive the box without any hitch through United Nations, every arrangement will be made to proceed to your country.

 Once I confirm your interest to my proposal, and your positive reply I will proceed with the arrangement to move the consignment out of the trouble area and register your name as the beneficiary then move the consignment to your country Red Cross office. I am willing to give you 30% of the total sum when the money is delivered to you. I wait for your response so we can proceed immediately. In less than 7 days the money should be in your safe custody.

 The only telephone access we have here is radio message which is for our general use and is being monitored, therefore all communication will be via email till we finish our assignment. Please keep it to your self even if you are not interested, thank God for President Barrack Obama whose keen interest is to call us back home soon.

 Regards,

Col. Tom Collins

Implausibility

The implausibility of this sort of e-mail is evident on several levels. First, why would someone contact me as if I'm the best person to receive a $16 million shipment. I wouldn't say no to $4.8 million if I found it on the street, but I hardly think that I'm the best person to fulfill this sort of function. There has to be another layer of people more likely to succeed in laundering this amount of money that are closer to the troops.

Second, the author can't even bother to be consistent in his own e-mail. He's an American colonel, but at the same time, he wants to get money into "your country." At least if you're going to lie to me you should be a little craftier.

Third, I'm supposed to believe that the phone is monitored but e-mail isn't? Seriously? Who falls for this stuff?

Anyway, I guess I've violated the agreement because I've published the solicitation even though I was asked by the good Col. Tom Collins not to. I wonder what might have responded and strung him along like the guy in this TED talk.

Playing Along

Here's what happens if you actually play along with the spamming scammers. The speaker is a comedian, so his timing is good. This is one of the more entertaining TED talks I've watched.

Used by CC License. Danger from Heavy Seas by Anne. http://ow.ly/CyQN3005z9p

Statistics that Broaden Our Perspective

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

The use of statistics in argumentation is often maligned. Often this is for good reason, since some very subtle sleights of hand can cause factually correct statistics to significantly misrepresent reality.

For example, there is the joke about the PR department’s reporting of the results of the annual softball game against the R&D department. After losing by a dozen runs, the company newsletter reported that the PR department had suffered a single loss that season while the R&D department had finally managed to achieve their first win of the year.

Despite the very plain dangers of the use of numbers, they are often a good way to illustrate things. Sometimes numbers, when properly used, can help put things into a whole new perspective.

Human Deaths due to War

This video about the numbers of deaths during various wars in history shows how statistics can help us understand our world a little better. Particularly with the rise of the modern media, with social media increasing the number of citizen reporters, we get a steady stream of information about who is killing who and how awful it is. This video helps to put things into perspective

Without diminishing the reality of human suffering, this video shows that things may not be as bad as we believe based on our Facebook feeds. It would be good to live in a world where no one is killing anyone. In fact, I long for that day, though I anticipate it won’t come until Christ returns.

Life is hard and injustice is real, but this visual representation of statistics helps put things into perspective. And perspective is helpful in keeping us from being overwhelmed by the horrors of the world. There are many horrors and will continue to be more, but it may be they are not nearly as pervasive as we might think.

Outrage Porn

Social media enables what has come to be known as "outrage porn." If a definition is required, outrage porn is the phenomenon where people are addicted to being upset about what someone (usually distant from them) is doing and how wrong it is.

This is what leads to people actually getting upset over the colors of a dress in a picture on the internet. It is what leads to a constant stream of angry bloggers (from the right and the left) taking the words of actors, politicians, and regular people out of context, writing about them, and starting a movement to call for the people’s demise. (Or worse yet, actually caring what some of these celebrities say and thinking it is important simply because they say it.)

Outrage porn is how we get a national debate over a boy with a science experiment clock or intentional faux bomb thingy. It doesn’t matter that none of us are in a position to know enough about the topic, we are justified in lauding the victim and crucifying the authorities or mocking the supports and justifying suspicion based on religious grounds. (This is a false dichotomy, of course, but it makes the point.)

We’ve lost perspective because of the broadening of our field of view with the narrowing of our focus. We can see the whole world through the internet, but the lens tends to be more and more biased. Often the bias is myopically focused on the present to the exclusion of the past. (After all, we can’t really trust history because it was written by the dominant culture.)

Taking a Step Back

The video and its visual representation of history (inasmuch as the statistics are reliable) help to put things into perspective by breaking through the “newness” of the newsfeed and seeing history synchronically; it sets different eras beside each other.

In this case, it reinforces the horrors of World War II. It helps me to understand the generation that lived through it a little better. It also shows me that today might not be quite as bad as I thought.

There is room for concern, but no need for despair. In that, this is a helpful video, really.

Why Churches Should Have Websites

Used in original by creative commons license: http://ow.ly/SxKG4 

My recent relocation to a new city has driven me to a fundamental belief that a church that does not have a digital footprint is failing the community. In other words, in the American context, a church without a website is in error.

To some a website seems superfluous. What does it matter if we are preaching the Word and doing ordinances correctly? A few years ago I might have argued the same thing. However, from the perspective of someone looking for a church home, the lack of a website is a significant failure on the part of a church.

Three reasons to have a website

The first reason it is important for churches in the digital age to have a website is because without a digital footprint it is nearly impossible to find a church. As a newcomer to town I have no idea where some of these small churches are located. I don’t have a phone book and a phone book is insufficient for getting information out in this day and age anyway.

If churches want to be found by anyone who doesn’t live right next door, they need to communicate their presence. The most efficient way to do that is with a simple website.

The second reason for a church to have a website is to provide helpful information. For example, what time does the church meet? Unless the congregation takes out an ad in the phone book (which will likely cost more than a simple website), then having the only marker of the church’s existence be the name and seven digits of phone number in the yellow pages is not very helpful.

Additionally, a website can simply convey what the church believes. Are you a moderate SBC church that refuses to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? This is good to know so that people can skip over to a biblically-faithful congregation. Also, how does your pastor preach? A visitor shouldn’t have to spend several hours to visit just to find that the pastor uses a text as a springboard for a ramble through a self-help lecture. That time could be better invested looking for a congregation where Scripture is valued and there is opportunity to serve.

It doesn’t take much time or money these days to create a simple website that presents the basic facts and links in some sermon samples (even if they are the best ones). The result is that people know what to expect, where to be there, and you are more likely to get visitors that are more likely to join the fellowship.

A third reason for a church to have a website is to meet the needs of the community. How will the person in the midst of a divorce find out you have a care group to minister to that situation unless you put it online? Maybe through word of mouth, but most people depend on a web search.

How about the ways that your congregation provides emergency aid to the community? Or, if the church does job training or a clothing closet, it is insufficient to expect work conversations to really communicate the resources to those in need. When technology is so inexpensive and ubiquitous, the failure to use it should lead others to question whether the aid programs are intended to be effective.

Stewardship

Although recently someone attempted to tie the existence of church websites to the decline in SBC missions, that tie is tenuous. Perhaps it applies to churches that spend large amounts of money on top of the line sites. That isn’t the point of this discussion.

A failure to have a website is a marker that you really don’t want to have people visit. Whatever your rhetoric is, you don’t want visitors if you won’t provide information about your congregation. This is not just new move-ins to the community, this applies to those in your community that suddenly have a need that drives them to seek out a church.

When a church fails to provide a digital footprint with basic information, it puts the onus on the visitor to figure everything out. As a believer who is required by my contract to join a church, I am forced to do the legwork to find a church. However, if I did not have that driving force, it would be much easier to stay in bed on a Sunday morning than to make phone calls, visit around, and potentially miss the beginning of your service because the church didn’t publish a schedule.

A church without a website is still a church. This isn’t a question of orthodoxy. However, a church without at least a simple website is not stewarding the available technology and resources well. While this isn’t essential to the gospel, it is a gospel issue because it undermines the effectiveness of a congregation in serving the community.

Communicating Truth in a Digital Age

Used by CC license. Original: https://www.flickr.com/photos/seanbonner/2086934736

The greatest thing about the internet is that democratizes the exchange of information. We are no longer dependent on curators choosing which parts of the story we get to hear.

The worst thing about the internet is that it democratizes the exchange of information. We no longer have people filtering the stories we hear to help us get an accurate understanding of issues.

Carl Trueman wrote a critique of the problem the democratization of the internet a few years ago:

“Then there was the case of a young guy who wanted to engage in email banter about something I’d written. What fascinated me was the way this person referred to himself at one point in our exchange as a scholar. Yet he had no higher degree, no track record of publications which had passed muster with peers in the field. Indeed, he’s still a student, not yet even beginning a doctoral program. Indeed, he’s a long way from possessing that most basic of academic union cards: a PhD. Now, I guess I’m old fashioned but the category of scholar is one which should be reserved for those who have established themselves in their chosen field by actual scholarly achievement, not by simply talking a good game. This credibility is achieved by consistent, careful and scholarly contributions to a field in terms of refereed publications which then enjoy currency among qualified peers outside the person’s immediate circle of epigonous friends.”

Trueman may be a bit stodgy when it comes to academic qualifications. Sometimes people without the guild card of a terminal degree can make outstanding contributions to fields of study. However, those people are usually put forward by an expert who knows the field and recognizes the contribution made by an individual. Rarely do they self-identify as an expert. And rarely do they rise to the top of the field by merely reading and writing blogs.

Additionally, sometimes people that have academic qualifications are not as well informed as they believe themselves to be. This is particularly true when people are qualified in one area and speak out in another.

Overreaching by assuming authority in another discipline is a common trap for smart people to fall into. They assume that because they are highly qualified in one field, that ability bleeds over to other fields. Thus, an excellent civil engineer may feel herself to be an expert in evolutionary theory, too. The potential for that expertise may exist, but, as we all know, potential and actuality are two vastly different things.

The Value of Experts

Trueman’s criticism is generally valid because the process of earning a PhD in any subject trains an individual to recognize their own ignorance. The practice of careful scholarship and the fear of academic hubris that is generated during higher academics should improve a person’s ability to reason and explain a position.

There is an old aphorism, “The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.” I heard professors spout that over the years, but it never really sunk home until I started working toward a PhD.

When I was reading introductory books and sitting in classes as an MDiv student, I was able to gain much of the information rapidly. Sometimes I felt like I knew it all. Then I started doing independent, academic research and realized how little I knew. I also realized how many of the opinions that I held so strongly had more potential criticisms that I had imagined.

This doesn't mean that my positions were not correct. I held to and still hold to a robust orthodoxy. However, sometimes I’ve had to rephrase my understanding of my positions. At other times, I’ve maintained my position and recognized that I’ve held it for the wrong reasons. And, still other times, I’ve come to the recognition there are a broader range of valid options than I had initially allowed.

Used by CC license. See Original: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tedxcalgary/15917692961

None of this means there isn’t an absolute truth, which can be objectively known. Neither does it mean that all ideas are fair game and we can’t know anything. However, it does mean that a bit more humility is in order than I originally allowed, particularly when I am dealing with differing ideas within the bounded set of orthodoxy.

This is where the democratization of expertise comes back into this discussion. The internet is the Wild West of information and opinions. Anyone with a little time can start up a blog and make it look official.

As a result, the internet gets flooded with content that is ill-reasoned, ill-informed, and often caustic toward people that hold different opinions. You won’t go far on the internet before you run into someone being denounced because he holds a different position than another person.

Debate is a good thing, but in the wilderness of the internet there is a great deal more bloviating than debate. This is true on the left and the right. Part of this is that things look black and white when considered at an elementary level. This means that the subtleties of positions are generally not understood. It makes debate difficult, but being an insulting troll very easy.

So what’s the point?

The point is that we all need to engage in online conversations with grace and humility. We need to appreciate our own limitations. The handful of blogs and few books we’ve read don’t necessarily qualify us to comment on every social or theological debate.

We need to be clear, but gracious, where Scripture speaks clearly. In places Scripture doesn't specifically speak we need to be especially gracious and humble in how we approach the issue. We also need to recognize the complexity of our views and the opposing views.

No one believes they are a bad guy. Everyone thinks they are doing good, except for a few psychotically selfish people. Most of the time the place the discussion needs to begin is much deeper than the actual issue in question. The problem is not in the particular position, but at a deeper theological level.

For instance, the debate about abortion is more about an appropriate understanding of the value of human life than it is about individual rights. When we hold the debate in rights language instead of dealing with the deeper theological issue, we will make little progress. Unfortunately, the popular debate is nearly always couched in rights language.

Worse still, when we insult and impute motives to the people that disagree with us we merely galvanize their position. As William Blake wrote in the Proverbs of Hell, “Damn braces. Bless relaxes.” It’s hard to convince someone of your position when you’ve insulted them. More significantly, it’s hard to show the light of the gospel to someone you’ve verbally assaulted.

Christians, as people who claim to have access to objective truth through God’s special revelation, need to be especially careful about engaging in conversations well. We need to be purveyors of truth who seek to make our case well, but never compromising on both the meaning and the tone of our message.

Dress Colors, Social Media, and Questionable Research

Last week on Thursday, there were two hot topics on Social Media that kept many people amused (and somewhat less than maximally productive) for quite some time. The first was a debate on the color of a dress. 

Someone posted a picture on tumblr in mid-February and asked for help determining what color it is. (Here is the link, note there is some questionable language in the post.) 

Given a few weeks and a snow storm in the Southeast of the US, which gave a number of people downtime to try to discover the end of the internet, and presto!, we have a viral debate raging on social media about absolutely nothing. It's sort of like an episode of Seinfeld, only it lasted more than 22 minutes and really isn't nearly as funny.

For nerds (and I include myself in this descriptor), the science behind the confusion is pretty interesting. In fact, I found the post at Wired that explained the nature of the confusion to be enthralling. There is a scientific explanation for the perception of different colors depending on the setting.

The Social Phenomenon

More significant to my mind, though, is the way that such a benign and pointless social phenomenon has been reported in the media. Not only did it inspire Wired to write a post to cash in on the web traffic, but all of the major news network jumped on the story.

To put this in plain English, with everything going on in the world, a story about a social media debate got picked up by the news.

This reveals some of the significance of social media. It isn't just a fad that will be gone like slap-wrap bracelets (which are still around, just not as popular as when I was a kid). Social media is driving the way society thinks.

Is this the way it should be? I don't think so, but that's not the point. This particular cultural event reinforces the reality that we cannot simply ignore the phenomenon of social media or demonize it. We have to figure out how to meaningfully engage this tool without allowing it to cheapen our own way of thinking. To that end, Karen Swallow Prior has written a helpful blog at Christianity Today that details some of the potential lessons to be learned from #TheDress.

I have written previously on some of the dangers of social media, based on their potential to damage personal relationships. I have also written about reasons why Christians should (and should not) blog, which is pertinent because social media is the platform that conveys the bloggers message to a broad audience.

The answers are not immediately obvious, but a debate over dress colors and coverage of escaping llamas drew national attention and broad social media engagement. The church needs to figure out how to use this tool and how it fits into a Christian worldview.

The Research Phenomenon

A second significant issue is the way that informal reporting and researching techniques are being used to promulgate internet news. One example of this is, ironically, this post, which relies on internet searches and cultural artifacts to present a case. Recognizing this irony, and not claiming to be an actual news source, I press on with my opinion.

In a 1995 book, Telling the Truth, Lynne Cheney notes,

“From 1968 to 1988, the average sound bite for a presidential candidate on the network evening news had plummeted from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. In the 1992 campaign the length of time would become shorter still: 8.4 seconds. Meanwhile, the portion of the news taken up by correspondents’ comments rose to 71 percent, with candidates sharing the remainder of the time with voters and political experts. A study of the New York Times showed a similar trend. From 1960 to 1992, the average continuous quote or phrase from a candidate in a front page story fell from fourteen lines to six lines. In both television and print, reporters increasingly had power to turn the candidates’ words and deeds into illustrative material for the stories they wanted to tell.”

Twenty years after Cheney wrote this, the problem has not gone away. Indeed, if anything, social media platforms like Twitter have caused people, politicians included, to self-limit to 140 characters and thus strip their own comments of context. We have made it easier for someone to reframe our comments according to their own liking.

But a second significant theme is the prevalence of telling stories. In many cases the point is no longer to reveal truth, but to tell a compelling stories. This allows bloggers and media personnel to look for rapid sources of some credibility that will carry their message in a way that will get clicks and support their narrative.

Often this results in a tight circle self-reference with dubious credibility. This Tweet, captured on the day after the dress color debate went viral illustrates the research phenomenon:

#media pic.twitter.com/3juSOx4RAw

— Jake Beckman (@jakebeckman) February 27, 2015

Does this mean that the analysis is not correct? No. It may be correct. In fact, it may be so inconsequential that it doesn't matter if it is correct. After all, do we really care what color the dress is?

However, this is merely an illustration of what I believe to be a broader phenomenon that includes more significant topics. Experts are citing experts citing experts. Who knows that the chain of proof doesn't lead back to my blog, or another similar platform that also lacks credibility on a particular subject? 

We must seek truth. This means that we need to be skeptical of some of what gets conveyed as news. Just because we read it on the internet, even from a widely published source, does not mean it is credible or true. This also means we need to avoid crucifying people because of the way someone presents someone else's opinion on a blog or social media. Learning to do these things well is a critical task for Christians in the 21st century.

Why Should People Blog?

I own several hundred books that I haven’t read, most of which I hope to read or reference at some point. New books are coming out at an amazing rate. I've found that I certainly can't keep up in my sub-discipline of Christian environmental ethics. Forget about actually reading the new books from the various Christian publishing houses that people around me and in my church are reading.

Even more than the available published books, the internet is awash in a sea of information. We are inundated with data, facts, descriptions, accounts, pictures, videos, opinions, artifacts, and various entertainments. 

If your Facebook feeds and Twitter streams are anything like mine, you probably have the same overwhelmed feeling that I get when I think of all that there is to think about and read and process. There is no way I can keep up with the torrent of information that is sent my way on the internet, forget about the thousands of volumes in the local library that I haven’t read.

With this overflow of information, why do people–myself included–feel it necessary to chime in by creating more online content? 

There are at least three reasons why bloggers write:

First, there is a theological reason for this. Humans are made in the image of God. It’s been that way since God created Adam and Eve. Part of the way we reflect the image of God is by creating. God is a creator, we are sub-creators that imitate his work. One way that some of us reflect God’s creative activity is by thinking and writing. Blogs are simple ways of doing that, though the writers may not be conscious of this motivation.

Second, practically speaking, writing for blogs is the easiest way to get published. Even if you are a good thinker and writer, there is no guarantee that a completed book will get published. However, for under $100 and a few hours of work, you can have a customized web address, some pretty pictures, and your own content displayed for hundreds–more likely dozens–to view. The desire to publish can have either positive or negative motivations.

Third, blogging provides a way to communicate to a broader audience. Ideally this is what blogging is good for. Blogging should be less focused on ranting, reacting, and misrepresenting than on communicating valuable perspectives on things that the writer is intimately familiar with or has at least carefully researched.

How does blogging advance the kingdom?

As a Christian, the most significant motivation for me should be to advance the Kingdom of God. This is done by verbally proclaiming the gospel as well as by working to bring the redemptive power of the gospel to bear on the world around us. 

Blogging can help with both aspects of this.

In fact, Karen Swallow Prior makes the point that blogging is just the latest technological iteration of an older impetus. In her recent book, Fierce Convictions, Prior notes that the pamphlets that were used to good effect in the 18th and 19th centuries to make theological and social arguments broadly and inexpensively are the precursor to blogs. These pamphlets were cheap to print, could be mass produced, and broadcast widely. This sounds a lot like blogs to me.

Pamphlets helped to change the world, even though their messages were often brief and transient. Blogs can do the same, hopefully for the better.

Tony Merida notes the possibility of Kingdom service through blogging in his recent book Ordinary. When offering practical suggestions for speaking up and helping end injustice, Merida writes, “Consider writing a blog to your readers or encouraging someone else who blogs to highlight a particular issue of injustice.”

Merida recognizes the power of our modern means of communications. He also recognizes the danger of it. 

He writes, “Be aware of the fact that it is easy, as well as dangerous, to speak with a false sense of authority, make sweeping generalizations, or perhaps even disclose information that can re-victimize or increase vulnerabilities for the very ones you seek to speak up for.” 

There is raw power in blogging that must be managed carefully.

Being truthful should be the primary goal of every communicator. Communication that is misleading, intentionally or accidentally, does not advance the Kingdom. As a private citizen, I have a responsibility to present the facts as well as I can and be subject to correction when I fail at that.

Grace should pervade every post. The internet is a wilderness and there is great potential for doing good or evil by communicating on the web. If I slander someone or viciously attack every move someone makes, I could cause someone great harm. Even when a blogger writes to argue a point, she should seek to be gracious. There will be fewer clicks in the short term, but this is a gospel issue. Internet shaming is a tactic from the pit of hell and should be avoided at all costs.

A sense of purpose should drive the content of a site. There are too many media-lite parrots on the internet that slightly repackage yesterday’s news to gather a few clicks. My social media streams are overflowing with these sorts of links. A good rule of thumb is that unless you are providing something unique to the conversation, you shouldn't post it and share it. All you are doing is speaking from someone else’s authority and flooding the stream. You may be killing legitimate dialogue in the process.

Additionally, sometimes you just shouldn't post your opinion on the latest scandal in the news because you don’t have enough information about critical race theory, the justice system, internet hacking, or Middle Eastern politics. This doesn't mean you can’t learn about those things, but publishing something assumes a degree of expertise. Doing this improperly can be dangerous and misleading.

So what?

In the end, blogging and social media have potential to make contributions for the Kingdom, both by being evangelistic and by promoting justice. This is true only if we use the available tools well, covered in prayer, seasoned with the gospel, and focused on doing good instead of just self-promotion.

Note: If you find this interesting, you may also be interested in my previous post on Social Media and the Christian.

Social Media Use and the Christian

One of the main limitations of electronic communication is the lack of tone. This means that e-mails between people who are generally unfamiliar with each other have a strong potential to be misread and misinterpreted.

It is no mystery that losing the facial expressions, body language that you get with a face to face conversation. Even the cue of a tone of voice is missing from electronic communication. These make communicating electronically a perpetual danger.

Consider the simple student-professor interaction. A student asks a question via e-mail, which is clearly outlined in the syllabus. The professor has a few choices. The first is to carefully answer the question, eating up valuable time and (perhaps) enabling the inattentiveness that is at the root of the student’s problem. 

A second choice is to simply write back, “It’s in the syllabus.” This is exactly the truth, but the e-mail lacks the gracious tone of voice that communicates to the student that, while they are important as a person made in the image of God, they need to demonstrate the life skills of doing due diligence before pestering someone. Instead, this has the strong potential to be received by the student as a harsh message, which is, most of the time, not warranted or intended.

The Dangers of Facebook Debates

E-mail, at least, offers opportunities for expanding and contextualizing responses.  So do platforms like Facebook. Still, Facebook has its own dangers.

The prime concern with Facebook debates is that you are essentially holding a conversation across the room. This works when you are telling someone you think their puppy is cute or congratulations on getting married. However, when you are explaining a nuanced political point there will be, inevitably, someone who isn’t aware of the context that is listening and misinterpreting the conversation.

In this manner, pieces of a discussion that are assumed but not spoken may lead someone with a different worldview to draw significant conclusions. If terms are not defined, it may lead someone to believe something about the discussion or its participants that just isn’t true. It may be, too, that the relationship between the readers allows a tone to be assumed, instead of expressed. However, since the debate is being read by those outside the circle, it may misrepresent the nature of the argument. Consider the following:

Person 1: “Aaron Rogers is the best quarterback ever.”
Person 2: “You’re an idiot, Joe Montana is better by a mile, just like I’ve always said.”

This conversation may be nothing but chatter between friends, but to the third person who is unaware of the joviality, this may seem harsh. 

Now imagine if the conversation is about an important topic, like an upcoming Supreme Court decision or a theological topic. The public nature of such debates makes them dangerous for maintaining gracious Christian tone.

The Risk of Twitter Exchanges

A greater danger for Christians in the electronic world lies in the abbreviated exchanges that take place on Twitter.

The lack of expressiveness and context in many forums, like e-mail and Facebook, can be overcome by being verbose. Sometimes people overcome it by using emoticons, but I am opposed to those on principle. :-)

On Twitter, however, you get 140 characters. You couldn’t even order a meal in 140 characters. How can you expect to make a convincing argument in that space?  More significantly, how can you hope to communicate your point with grace in that short a span?

Here, again, the conversation taking place in a public space without even the protections of various nuanced privacy settings. As the trolling that takes place when a conference uses a hashtag to collect tweets demonstrates, there are a lot of people with too much time on their hands that are more than glad to be nasty to someone else just for fun.

Additionally, once something is posted on Twitter, there are numerous bots that catalog tweets, sometimes just for the purpose of internet shaming. Suddenly a relatively innocuous tweet you made about a marriage conference can be posted on a website, labeled (with your avatar) as hate speech, because you spoke positively about someone’s presentation. Even if you delete the tweet, those sentiments may be available for an internet eternity.

What this latter example illustrates is that Twitter allows the reader to provide his or her own context. This should make use consider what the appropriate use of Twitter really is.

It should also make us think carefully about how we treat other people’s tweets. If we expect a modicum of grace for our tweets, we should grant the same to others, even those with whom we strongly disagree.

There is certainly more to be discussed about the use of social media as Christians. I’m interested in reading your comments below and continuing this very important conversation.

Note: This post (and perhaps some to follow) have been spurred on by an ongoing conversation with my friend, Sam Morris (@samorris8) who is the social media guru for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.