In twenty years of serving Jesus, I have watched my ministry practices change in a positive way due to the technological age we live in. The availability of Christian resources online (blogs, podcasts, etc.) has been help me to keep abreast of current issues and topics in Christendom. However with every good thing, there is also a dark side. Just as positive resources are a mouse click away, the internet provides a vehicle for well-meaning and sometimes not so well-meaning critics. These critics, in the name of Biblical confrontation, use the internet (blogs, Facebook, etc.) to critique and lodge accusations against others believers. Some have blogs devoted purely for this reason. They often do so in the name of Christian apologetics or simply to “contend for the faith (Jude 3).
I have to admit that I am extremely bothered by this component of the Christian web. Maybe it is because I am getting older and maturing. Maybe I sense that the tone, topics and character assassinations exhibited by those who blog and those who respond to these blogs are well outside of any Biblical conduct encouraged by the Scriptures. So as I have wrestled with my feelings concerning this dimension of the blogosphere, I have arrived at several thoughts concerning whether the internet is the proper place for Biblical confrontation.
1. The First Amendment does not supersede the scriptures.
We live in a free society where we are guaranteed the right to express our opinions openly without any fear of reprisal. Our culture prides itself in open and frank conversation. We love the fact that we can surf the net and read the writings and posts of others who support our agendas. While this may be true for our culture, I find that as believers in Jesus Christ, we are constrained by the scripture in how we can approach the faults and errors of another brother. Too often much of what I read in the name of Biblical confrontation is outside of the guidelines of Matthew 18 and Galatians 6:1. We need to remember that our rights to freedom in our culture do not trump the guidelines of scripture concerning our approach to another human being.
2. The internet is not governed by social constraints.
I am really amazed at the lack of constraints that people have on the internet. All of us probably have shaken our heads at the online behavior of individuals we know. We know that they would never act that way in public. Yet, they feel perfectly free to do so on the internet. The tone and manner of the confrontations taken place on the net in most cases would not be exhibited in a face to face meeting. Why? Those meetings would be governed by accepted social norms and protocols. On the internet, everything is fair game.
3. It appeals to immaturity.
As a new Christian, I often found myself attracted to critiques of others and their ministries. At that time, there were no blogs to read. Instead, there were publications written by folks who felt it was their duty to expose the errors of others. These publications appealed to the baser part of my character. As I have grown older, I realized that it appealed to my immaturity. In many ways, this type of information is simply a Christian version of the tabloids that plague our society.
4. The validity of a point does not negate the manner of communication.
When I read the blogs of those who have chosen to confront others on the net, the issue is not the validity of their point of concern. The issue is the manner that they have chosen to communicate it. They chosen not to go to the individual themselves, but rather to discuss the issue (without the offending party) in a public forum. Just because your point is valid, does not negate the principles of Biblical confrontation.
5. The object of our confrontation doesn’t live nearby.
I have found it interesting that most of the critiques are about pastors who live in another city or state. It is easy to throw bombs at people who don’t live near us. I am sure that there are people and ministries in your community who hold to the same beliefs and methods. Yet, we would never think of expressing our feelings about them publically. That because we might meet them in town.
6. Words have consequences.
James tells us the unrestrained words have consequences (James 3:1-16). I believe that the nature of the internet shields us from the consequences of our behavior. But the fact remains that my words, written or spoken, can and will hurt others.
7. In a church context, it would be called dissension.
This behavior often manifests itself in our churches. One party is offended by another. Rather than deal with the issue Biblically, one party begins to express to others their position. That party soon gathers others to sympathize with their position. Soon, divisions arise within the congregation. This pattern of destructive behavior is known as dissension. Yet, on the internet it is called proper.
8. Biblical confrontation seeks restoration.
Missing from much of what is expressed on the internet is a Biblical concept of confrontation. Biblical confrontation seeks to restore an individual. The manner and scope of what is written on many blogs is not for the purpose of restoration. Rather is to demonize individuals and their ministries. You are sometime left with the impression that they are really not interested in changing the person’s life. In fact, such a change would be an inconvenience which would result in the questioning of one’s sincerity.
I have to face the reality that the internet is what it is. As I mentioned before, this type of behavior existed before the existence of blogs. Yet, I do have control over my own behavior. I can choose not to read these blogs. I can choose to influence younger believers, especially those who are called to ministry, reject this tabloid-like material. I can help them to see that it is appealing to their immaturity. Like all other forms of gossip, I can choose to let it end with me.



Recent Comments