Sunday, March 27, 2011

I think, therefore I blog

My housemate Phil declared, on seeing "The Social Network" with me last year, that it was THE film to capture our generation, and Phil knows about movies (he writes them) so I guess I'll trust him on that one. I certainly thought of it when reading this article from ChristianityToday on the impact of blogging and Web 2.0 on theological debate. Mostly I thought of it because the article directly referenced the film. But I also thought of it because, duh, it's an obvious connection.

In particular, I thought of it when I read this section of the article:

Social media relentlessly asks us to publish our personal opinions on anything and everything that happens. There is no time for reflection in prayer, no place for discussion with other flesh and blood image bearers, and no incentive to remain silent.

You must declare your position, and you must declare it now.

Which is, of course, where the film tells us that Mark Zuckerberg began: blogging about his breakup of that evening, and insulting his ex-girlfriend in the most public forum the world has ever known, the Internet. This was, of course, a practice that the said ex-girlfriend Erica later decries sarcastically:

As if every thought that tumbles through your head was so clever it would be a crime for it not to be shared. The Internet's not written in pencil, Mark, it's written in ink.

The problem with blogging is the very problem that Zuckerberg had that night: it's instantaneous, and encourages instantaneous, and thoughtless, comment. This, as the ChristianityToday article observes, is an approach to public discourse that is anathema to so much in the Bible, and thus should be anathema to church practice.

But wait a minute. The article makes an excellent point, and I don't want to defend it purely because I, as this very page demonstrates, am a blogger. No, I'm not interested in defending blogging, rather in refining what it should aim to do.

First of all, I would suggest that Paul's injunction to Timothy to "watch [his] life and doctrine closely" could be revised to, "watch your life and blogging closely". That's to say, do you think, or pray, before you blog? Do you aim for consistency in the life you live and the life you portray online? Do you embrace the anonymity of the internet to live a life, and to espouse a worldview, which those that know you best would laugh at you living and espousing?

I don't know how I would answer those questions. I am not writing this because I have any of this worked out. I cannot write this post at all without a fairly strong sense of the irony of every word I am typing. But blogging ain't going away, even if I decided, prayerfully, to suspend my blogging altogether. So I might as well use it to spread the word, that they who blog should be judged more harshly than they that keep their discreet mouths shut.

That said, if by prayerful reflection I did decide I should no longer blog, I would hopefully have the maturity and humility to do so. But for the time being, I say to everyone who both reads this and knows me: Don't just read what I blog. Look at how I live. If they don't match, tell me. I need to hear.

For the time being, I will try to pray more before I blog, and to think more, and to write only when I have something to say. That seems a good place to start.

5 comments:

Lucidus said...

I think there's a difference between a 'superblog' - you know, the sort that is every Piper and Driscoll wannabe trumpeting their (oft ill-informed) opinion to their one million followers, and a personal blog - just you and your friends quietly musing on, like ... cheese, in the blogosphere, because the topic didn't quite make it in real-time conversation.

I learn interesting things about people's thoughts - the sort of white noise thinking that often goes unnoticed in everyday life - from their blogs. They've usually distilled it into a clear form. Point taken about not posting the first thing that comes into your ahead, but the same could be said of not saying the first thing that comes into your head, in any 'real-life' conversation.

He makes a good point about the art of mulling over, and thinking through an idea, till the end, so it's not half-baked. But I think that's symptomatic of our microwave generation, with our impetuous impatience - if it's not ready in three minutes, it ain't worth getting (I say this, as I write a mere 4 hours after you've published! Plank fail!)

Twitters and Blogs exacerbate the issue, sure. but we *do* live in an instantaneous digital age, and we've got to learn how to cope with that, in a discerning and gracious way. (Which is hard! And I don't envy you your job.)

Blogs even out the playing field. Which, I think, can be good. We're not longer afraid to challenge the heavy-weights, and we're opening discussion far and wide for theological issues as well as others. It's what the printing press did for the 16th century.

What I think is needed, is wiser teaching: teaching how to sift information (how many people failed the basic dictum of reading the original source rather than the secondary criticism with the Bell fiasco?) But also teaching character: the art of patience, that good scholarship takes hard work and time, to shun instant gratification as we put in the effort ourselves to think and articulate our thoughts. To find joy in using the brains that God has given us, and to marvel at *his* infinite wisdom, whose immensity drowns out our petulant small thoughts, and whose wisdom humbles us.

mpp said...

Hear, hear. I like the distinction you make between superblogs and what we can call, for the purposes of our discussion, "cheese blogs". The question for me is where my efforts fit into all of that. Mine is definitely not a superblog, but I'm also not sure it's a cheese blog either! So I guess my aim is to be careful with what I say, to think and pray before, during and after writing. I completely agree that our instantaneous digital age is not going anyway and that learning how to harness all that it entails is the best option.

Thanks for the eloquent and thoughtful response!

Lucidus said...

There's a couple of things that I've side-stepped:

1. Blogs are inherently public - so even a so-intended cheeseblog can still be found and read by someone on the other side of the world. But is that necessarily a bad thing? I can definitely see the tendency for pride, as well as for a disjunction between real life integrity and what you end up saying on your blog (btw, that's always been there, as soon as we've all acquired a virtual identity. Cf. FB information pages etc.) So how do we actually make it good? What does it mean, to have a blogging identity, and to have followers to our blogs? What does it mean when a critical comment on x theologian, or y public figure is enshrined? It's an ethical question, and I think one that Christians need to think about, thoroughly, perhaps more than via a couple of bible verses about keeping silent. This sounds like what you're doing, which is brilliant ....

3. I'm really glad that the article challenges our motivation - and we need to always be praying before we do things that lend itself to public elevation, but this psychological analysis of the world of blogs and twitters doesn't go far enough, I don't think. I'm not convinced of its argument that just because your idea is blogged, you've become a teacher and an authority. The quick slapping of Bible verses to support his case also makes me suspicious - it has the potential to make people feel guilty, when they don't perhaps need to.

3. The thing that interested me about the article in Christianity Today - which was what I was chiefly responding to, not necessarily the challenges it presented you as a blogger (good and valid things we all need to think about!) - is that it's very quick in advocating a cease and desist policy, which is all too common amongst evangelical circles. Why can't Christians pepper the blogosphere with really helpful blogs (the term helpful blogs being subject to definition and dissection!)

4. The article lacks a sharp analysis of the nature and function of blogs - why we use them, why we like them, what are the advantages of them and their weaknesses. That is, are blogs capable of hosting the kind of complex, heated exchange of ideas that often takes place there? And other sundry questions. Alan Jacob has just posted something on this, I noticed ...

http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/2011/03/bogost-on-blogs.html

5. So in sum, I think there's an issue of potential conflation in that article, between the tool (blog) and the motivation (of the blogger). The nature of the tool is going to affect the person using it, and vice versa, and a clearer understanding of both would be helpful, rather an over-generalised condemnation. It's ironic that he himself is a blogger, and this article is online. But perhaps I need to go read his book (the next 2000 words after the initial post?)

Enough. Thanks for the good post. Food for thought. I'll stop cluttering your blog now.

mpp said...

All good things to think about. I definitely agree that a "cease and desist" policy isn't going to cut it, so your critique of the article is helpful - I wasn't entirely satisfied with it myself, and you give some good pointers to help me think through it more. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

After getting more than 10000 visitors/day to my website I thought your ideasfromthenorth.blogspot.com website also need unstoppable flow of traffic...

Use this BRAND NEW software and get all the traffic for your website you will ever need ...

= = > > http://get-massive-autopilot-traffic.com

In testing phase it generated 867,981 visitors and $540,340.

Then another $86,299.13 in 90 days to be exact. That's $958.88 a
day!!

And all it took was 10 minutes to set up and run.

But how does it work??

You just configure the system, click the mouse button a few
times, activate the software, copy and paste a few links and
you're done!!

Click the link BELOW as you're about to witness a software that
could be a MAJOR turning point to your success.

= = > > http://get-massive-autopilot-traffic.com