Russ Moore, Blogging, and Revolution

Today Russ Moore has written a short article/blog post called "The Spiritual Danger of Blogging" (also posted at Mere Comments).  He has some important things to say, things that we as bloggers need to hear.  To be honest, I think he aims this post at me (though I drink mochas). 

I've encountered many blogs run by the sort of "self-righteous" and "cynical" people that he mentions.  Strangely, most that I have encountered have been run by Calvinistic inerrantist reformed-types (who I doctrinally side with) who think a doctrinal statement is the bottom line of righteousness.  They typically spend a lot of time finding errors in the doctrines of others, defending anyone who holds the same doctrines they hold no matter what they say, finding people with any connection to something bad and broad-brushing them into the heresy camp, and looking for sins in the culture to preach against.  It's a deadly lot and I have run among the "angry Calvinist" number before.

Though Russ seems to emphasize the bad bloggers (he may be a bit cynical about bloggers, I think), he also points to a good group of bloggers out there.  My fear is that his group would be the kind who always tow the party line, and link to the "right" places, and vote straight party ticket.

I've found many good bloggers too, but I would think they would be a different sort than Russ'.  I like the bloggers who don't draw extra-biblical lines of fellowship.  They are willing to speak truth even when it costs them connections they may need in ministry.  They point out the dangers Jesus points to (like legalism) and not the ones that legalists point to (like alcohol).  The bloggers I like are the ones who like Jesus so much that they realize how messed up they are and how great grace is.  I like bloggers who are interested in a Kingdom that God builds, and who would have no problem watching our institutions and kingdoms die when they cease serving God's desires.  Sounds delicious, doesn't it?

Ultimately Moore seems to miss something.  He writes, "But, let's be honest, blogs also tend to give a microphone to a kind of deadening cynicism and blind self-righteousness in the guise of taking on self-righteousness, legalism, and what-have-you."  Sure, we all would agree.  That happens too much.  All of us who blog have certainly from time to time held on to our "rightness" too tightly because being wrong isn't fun.  But this sort of self-righteous blogging that Moore speaks of rarely makes a ripple in the blogosphere, let alone beyond it. 

And Moore's quote can just be as easily be turned around.  The guise could be on the other side, just as it was with Jesus who seemed to criticize the religious power brokers the loudest and sharpest, not the little guy who was "self-righteously" attacking legalism.

In other words, I seriously doubt the big problem with blogging is that some of the "self-righteous" ones are getting a hearing and hurting the big boys.  I think it is much more likely that if any bloggers are getting loud enough to actually create a stir among the power brokers, those power brokers would try to find a way to combat the bloggers.  The odds are stacked against the bloggers and for those with power, position and notoriety.

And isn't this what we see with Luther and the 95 Theses?  He was an annoying gnat to the institution for questioning what they were doing.  Then some started to agree with him which created fear among the powerful, and an attempt was made to silence him (something that can't be done in the same way to bloggers, which elevates fears among the powerful today).  But Luther continued on as a flawed man who didn't do it all right, but who in the end was faithful and led a revolution of biblical proportions.

While I'm not able to remove the lint from Luther's belly button (and I'm more likely to lead a revolution for P.F. Chang's), I'm more hopeful about real change happening in the SBC after reading Russ' post.  It's a sign that the message of 'necessary change' is getting out.  God help us.

Comments

[Ryan DeBarr]

When I meet people in real life after first meeting them on the Internet, I'm frequently told something like "Wow, you're nothing like I pictured you... you're laid back and funny and personable."

When you blog about serious stuff all the time, you're going to come across as cynical and bitter. It just goes with the territory of writing.

But what Moore says about gossip is true... we'll say things online about various religious leaders that we would never say about a fellow church member. The computer has a way of making people seem less real, like you are battling a robot rather than a real person.

[Screwtape]

Screwtape:

A thoughtful response to very pointed criticism.

[Kevin Bussey]

Thanks Steve,

I needed to read this.

KB

[Joe Kennedy]

I try to be the same on my blog as I am in person. Kiki, Marty, Nick P., and Kevin (K-Dawg) can all let you know if it's true. I think there are some ethics for blogging, at least for Christians. By no means is this a great list, but I think we should always ask ourselves this before we post:

1. Are we reflecting Christ through this post?
2. Are we reflecting ourselves through this post?
3. Is what I say today going to be something that bites me eight months down the road, and if so, why?

I've been guilty of posting cynical, bitter posts in the past, especially with regard to my past. I've been open in posts about confession of sin, and that might one day be used against me. I also think that if I hadn't said what I said, it would have come out eventually. By no means have I been the best blogger, nor have I always followed those guidelines I mentioned before. But I'm trying to do so now.

I think even the lay person should remember to do their best to stay above reproach. If not because they're leaders in the church, then because they're always being watched (online or in real life).

Thanks for the post, Steve.

[Todd]

Good thoughts. I will not post about this on my blog but keep my thoughts here in your comments. Moore and others tend toward a dismissive attitude when it comes to questions raised by young pastors - and you are a bit younger than I. (insert smiley if I knew how)

While you take this as something pointed at you, I do not find you fitting the bill.

One thing, your line, "he says some things we need to hear" implies a very kind of position from which he and others get to control the dialogue. Never give up your high ground.

One day we will meet - who knows, maybe Greensboro. You may just discover I am not the old ogre. I believe we must keep asking hard questions and you tend to do a good job of that for which many of us are grateful.

[Steve McCoy]

I'd love to hear Russ isn't talking about me, but I think it's the case. Others have said the same thing.

[Nick P.]

Do you sit in a dark corner of Starbucks in your underwear, Steve? Mrs. McCoy might have something to say about that.

I don't know who the original source is, but, this seems appropriate: "it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you" :-)

So this seems to be pointed squarely at your question and subsequent retraction about SBTS, the abstract, and faculty, eh?

Steve, I might think you were being cynical if I didn't think you were working for positive change in the midst of the weighted criticism you give.

And it might be paranoia if there were no credible reports of people being threatened in some way.

And thanks for not painting yourself as a martyr.

[iMonk]

I'll tell you the problem with blogs:

They can't be controlled.

This new fad of making "blogging" synonymous with crime seems to suspiciously come from those who back room control tactics are being whistleblown.

Back in the day, the conservative resurgence would have blogged like crazy from all those liberal seminaries.

I'm glad for all the recent posts by non-bloggers on how bloggers need manners. Point well made. I could sure stand some civilization and polish. But blogs are the free market of information. Welcome to the age when the official spokesmen may get drowned out by pirate radio, earning their audiences one post at a time.

[Scott M]

Joe,

Your list of questions looks remarkably like the ones I use just for commenting on blogs. (And similar to ones I have used participating in and running lists for years.)

Thanks for sharing it.

[Stephen Newell]

Nick,

That seems to be the question of the moment, though, isn't it? "What credible reports?" I think my generation of students need to know who in their number has been so threatened before we can take any such report seriously. After my post the other day, some folks have started to talk. The consensus thus far seems to be that unless someone who is there now, that we know, speaks up, such reports are absurd. And can you really blame us if we're skeptical?

That being said, while I appreciate Moore's post, I do think it's misplaced. I've always tried to ignore gossips or approach them privately with correction, and if he really thinks blogging fosters gossip, this is the wrong way to confront it. Though I do understand it would be difficult to personally contact every one of those he blankets.

[Richard A. Bailey]

"There's nothing happening. There's nothing happening. There's nothing happening."

Oh, wait, that only works at the end of books (or movies) while clicking together the heels of silver (or ruby) slippers. Besides, some people enjoy living in the Emerald City. Just don't look behind the curtains.

[Joe Thorn]

Oh man, I am laughing out loud Richard! Good words Steve, and written with charity.

[Fred]

The biggest problem with what Moore writes is that he seeks to brush aside the critic rather than engage the criticism. Notice how he just paints the unnamed blogger with every sort of condescending cliche he can come up with.

Steve, put your coat and tie on, replace your laptop with a fountain pen and move from Starbucks to a fancy office and write responsibly for crying out loud. Then we'll all consider taking you seriously.

[Nick P.]

Stephen,

Your skepticism is healthy - it would be remiss to just take whatever one guy (like Steve) said, in saying that he has been receiving lots of emails with people experiencing some sort of intimidation.

There isn't a great deal for the public to go on - so perhaps it's a much better use of time to discuss issues that are concrete, and in the open. That also means talking about issues not personalities or faces.

Perhaps only when (or if) people speak up publicly about something in this vein. I might note that it might be (more) intimidating for a current student to speak up if (s)he felt like (s)he was facing a similar situation.

But like I said, your skepticism is healthy, and I appreciate your other comments as well.

[Kiki]

I think blogging is really a veiled conspiracy to get people like me to read. Or even worse, to think. : )

Before I met all of you guys, I had never heard of half these authors, didn't know what "reformed" meant (still not sure on that one) and certainly had never listened to anything that wasn't labeled "contemporary Christian."

Now I'm reading books like Newbigin and Sproul, having discussions about "election", listening to U2 (and loving it!), know what a "screwdriver" is, and discovered there are Marines in the world who can cross-stitch (Scott--I say that with respect!!!)

Where would I be apart from the world of blogging.......

[Stephen Newell]

Uh, listening to MxPx and watching Benny Hinn? *innocent look*

[John A Gillmartin]

Steve -

By implication Moore sets the context of his post as the evangelical Christian segment of the blogosphere.

Certainly both his and your comments are valuable insights but blogging is like the international music scene.

Shouldn't we remember we are just a minor segment of a huge subset within the overall genre?

I don't listen to Javanese music because I don't speak the language. And even if I did, I would listen to native music versus contemporary music.

Isn't the same idea important to those of us who blog? In our humble efforts to shape blogging within our context, shouldn't we be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I fear we are going to channel ourselves into an irrelavent corner of Godblogdom.

I'm irreverent, cynical, distrusting of my fellow man, distrusting of my generation, and won't lose any sleep if every human institution on earth begins to fall one-by-one, as if lined up in a domino-chain.

My blog reflects these sentiments: should it not? Or should I blog by a template set by others who feel they are closer to Jesus than me?

I blog to make a difference in this God-foresaken world; I blog to do what I can (in my spare time) to humbly serve God in building His Kingdom on earth, if He'll allow me.

And I don't care what people think about what I blog, other than what God thinks and sometimes I'm in trouble there. What's neat about blogging isn't that we are hidden from public view as Moore suggests it's that the public let's us know by their return whether we're relevant or not!

Where am I wrong?

[Kevin Regal]

Steve,

You wrote exactly what I was thinking. Everything Russ said was correct, but it is terribly one-sided.

I, for one, could take Russ more seriously if he had given a credible admission of the great value blogging offers to Christians who are trying to learn from one another as well as to Christian leaders (including presidents and senior vice presidents) who are under an even more powerful accountability (yes, that's a good thing) now that Christians can discuss ideas and events more easily.

Better yet, Russ could have made his comments in a forum where questioning and response were possible. I know that he doesn't have time to respond to every blogger out there, but he could respond to the most common questions and critiques that appear. As published, his remarks appear very aloof (not that he meant them that way--Russ is nothing if not warm and personable), almost as if he thinks he is qualified to make proclamations which no one should be allowed to question (again, I'm not saying he meant it that way).

In one way, bloggers can be quite refreshing. Many bloggers quite readily post corrections and apologies when their information or judgement is called into question. Everyone who talks or writes says things they later regret, but the "unquestionable" pronouncements that SBC leaders are accustomed to making are almost never retracted, corrected, or even clarified.

And, the dangers that Russ points out are not dangers of blogging per se; they are rather dangers of Christians living among and interacting with one another (I think Russ would agree). If someone were to replace every occurence of the word "blog" in Russ's article with the phrase "local church meeting," it would be just as valid a warning, but church attendance and membership are good things nonetheless.

[Joe Thorn]

Speaking of blogging with integrity... Let's say someone writes a post - something a bit edgy, trying to make a point. And let's say said post gets some attention. Now if, for whatever reason, the original post is altered by the author after initial publication and response, shouldn't such alteration be admitted? Shouldn't there be an editorial comment as to why a word/words were removed? Just asking, since blogging with integrity is important.

[Steve McCoy]

Joe, good question. I think most any blogger has tweaked here or there to provide clarity. I don't know if every instance has to be commented on, since it may not be significant. But any change of significance must be noted, no question.

[Tim Sweatman]

I believe I am a personal example of why many of our leaders are suspicious about blogging. Not that any of them would know me from a hole in the wall, but I typify their fears. Before I got involved with blogging last year, I was one of those who took everything said or done by our convention leaders as being right. After all, these were the conservatives who had won the Battle of the Bible for the SBC. Since the SBC is not very open about the way it operates, I had no idea about what was happening behind the scenes or of some of the questionable tactics employed during the resurgence. Some of you may recall that when I first appeared in the blogosphere (actually, it was the LifeWay younger leaders forum at first; from there I found the world of blogs) I strongly supported our convention leaders and was suspicious of those who were critical of some things that had happened or were happening. But as I have dialogued with many of you over the past year, or even just read your dialogues with each other, I have come to realize that there are some serious issues going on behind the scenes of the SBC that potentially could be devastating for our convention. I am probably still more sympathetic toward the resurgence and our leadership as a whole than some of you are, but I no longer follow our leaders blindly just because they are "conservative." I used to think that liberalism was the greatest danger to the SBC, but now I see rigid fundamentalism as an even greater danger, because it is prevalent in the SBC.

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, well said.

[Ted Gossard]

I have been appalled by some "Christian" blogs. All is wrong, especially with other "Christians" and the sky is falling.

I try to stay as far away from them as I can. Because it seems like nothing good can come from them. No conversation. No real understanding. And I don't want to pick up their spirit. Either by combatting them, or joining them!

[Meg]

Tim: Your perspective is refreshing.

I know how deeply immersed many people are in Christian radio, denominational messages, conservative in-groups, and so on, and how within those circles dissenting opinions are rejected out of hand and their proponents vilified.

Too many people--on both sides, really--are unwilling to let new perspectives reach their ears and their minds.

But you are listening. And you are willing to change your mind.

Always remember the Berean Christians, who tested what their leaders told them, always holding it up to the light of God's Word.

I hope that I will always have the courage and the intellectual and spiritual integrity to do the same.

Meg

[Scott]

Anyone intimidated by some anonymous blogger, hundreds of miles, sitting behind a computer screen, with his pajamas on, eating Icee Pops and drinking Mountian Dew really needs to man up.

[Fred]

What do you mean Joe? It would be helpful if you would provide an example of the kind of change you're talking about.

[Joe Thorn]

I could be wrong, but it looks like Russ changed his post on gossip after it was published and read by many. I think he removed "pastor" from the description of the gossipping blogger. It now reads, "a thirtysomething sitting in a Starbucks all day with a laptop, a latte, and a microchip on his shoulder." I think it said "thirtysomething pastor" earlier.

If he did change it, a bit of explanation would be nice. Maybe it was simply too narrow a description? Maybe he felt like it singled out Steve, and that was wrong?

[Nick P.]

"I could be wrong"

Joe - :-) this might be a good thread in which to 'know' before saying anything buddy. :-) I checked the google cache and didn't see what you thought you saw, but I don't know how old the cache is.

[Steve McCoy]

Nick, I thought that's what it said too. Does anyone have a way of finding out if Russ' post was changed?

[Joe Thorn]

Nick, I am 99% sure that is what it said. Others have noted the same thing.

[Barak Tjader]

I am an SBTS student and have spoken with Dr. Moore as well as his research assistant regarding the blog in question. The original content remains completely unaltered; not a single word has changed. It seems as though this particular blog and the subsequent “I could be wrong” conversation have, by and large, only served to strengthen Dr. Moore's point. By not contacting the author and then questioning his integrity, this dialogue demonstrates the kind of gossip that hinders the cause of the gospel of Christ.

[Joe Thorn]

If Russ says he has not changed anything, then he hasn't changed anything. My bad.

[Steve McCoy]

Barak, chill out a bit.

Joe didn't question Moore's integrity. He questioned a change in a sentence. Honestly, I've been emailed by people without provocation who have asked the same question Joe asked. Weird. Considering Russ said he didn't change it, and we believe him, it must just be some skunky beer going around.

I even said that people change posts regularly. I do too. If it's significant it should be noted, and I usually do, but since Russ' stuff is more like articles it wouldn't surprise me if he used a different standard than the typical blogger. An article with a strikethrough in it would be odd.