Christianity and the New Media

I’ve been noticing something lately that bothers me. I don’t really have good answers for how to respond to it, but it’s important.

One of the first books I read this year is sure to be one of the best. The Evolution of Adam forced me to think about what I believe about the Bible, and it was ultimately a faith-affirming experience because I was reminded of the amazing, unique nature of biblical inspiration. Through it, God shows at once his great humility and his great faith in humanity. On the one hand, he “stoops” to our level, consenting to be expressed within our terms and limitations. On the other hand, his essential faith in our ability to convey and comprehend what he wants to say is one of the great testimonies to his confidence in his own workmanship. (The Incarnation is the other.)

I am not going to take it to the mattresses over historical inerrancy. It seems to me that the important principles remain intact whether the biblical writers got all the numbers and dates right or not. But once I acknowledge that God’s use of flawed human vessels to communicate his word to us in the Bible may result in some factual exaggerations or mistakes, I begin to wonder where the lines are between human and divine influence. And then I notice some issues being discussed on evangelical blogs and other places where this nags at me.

For instance, Wendell Berry came out recently in defense of gay marriage. This surprised many people and sparked a lot of discussion online. One post I read recently suggested that homosexuality is, at least sometimes, an inborn condition, and the Bible writers didn’t know this. That’s why they are opposed to homosexuality. That isn’t God’s mandate; it’s humans’ mandate. So the argument went.

Another example is virginity, which I saw discussed at a popular evangelical author’s blog recently. “Does the evangelical church idolize virginity?” this writer asked. The post pointed out the inequality in how the standard of purity is applied, and the potential psychological damage of implying that women who are not virgins when they marry are somehow damaged goods. The general direction of the article was that we should all stop making such a big deal about virginity. It’s a humanly-emphasized issue, not a God-emphasized issue.

Without wishing to get sidetracked into a definition of my views on either issue, let me say that I agreed with various points in both posts. But I was uncomfortable with the general theme that Scripture is wrong on these points, because there was no case made as to why we should believe that. In certain historical points, archaeology has revealed evidence different from the biblical accounts, and this leads logically to the implication that some of those historical details in Scripture may reflect human influence and error. But in these social and moral issues, I really don’t know on what evidence these online writers base their view that the Bible’s perspective is questionable.

Which leads to my point: in the terms of the new media, consensus, not authority, is the meaningful currency. I have respect for both the writers I mentioned above. But I don’t regard them as biblical scholars, and I doubt that they are prepared to handle the implications of the discussions they are opening up about biblical interpretation. I’m old enough to remember when the Encyclopedia Britannica, not Wikipedia, was the go-to for information, and that was because the Encyclopedia Britannica was an authoritative source. Wikipedia is more popular now, because it is a.) free, and b.) convenient. But it is not authoritative. Consensus determines the content at Wikipedia, rather than an extensive board of experts in the various subjects it covers. (I think it was Tim Challies The Next Story that made me aware of this issue of authority after the “digital explosion.”)

Popularity, provocativeness, and right-heartedness (which characterize both writers I mention above), are not enough to inspire my trust when it comes to questioning the validity of Scripture on a given point. They are enough to turn me to my Bible with curiosity and openness, but I need more authoritative help discerning where the lines are between culture and transcendence among its pages. Even though authorities may entertain many divergent opinions, they are all more informed opinions than those of many of the most popular voices in the new media today, voices with huge audiences. I realize that the Bible is generally regarded as a democratic book, one for everyone, but it has its difficulties. I’ve been a Christian for 40 years, and I am still in need of good instruction in plumbing the depths of the Bible. I love to hear it taught, and taught about, knowledgeably.

Here is something I often come back to with fascination: Jesus did not come to earth during the information age. “The fullness of time” came before there was any possibility that the Sermon on the Mount could “go viral” on YouTube. Think how much more easily the Great Commission could have been fulfilled with today’s methods for disseminating information! Jesus could have taken care of it himself.

Instead, he came in a much quieter time, and he drew a following not because he had a great marketing strategy or had somehow managed to reach the tipping point, but because “he taught with authority.” People marveled at it, over and over again. By today’s standards for popularity, he made a very small splash. There were people waking up on the other side of Jerusalem on the morning he was crucified who had probably never heard of him. But his influence in world history has been lasting because he spoke with authority.

“Take care how you listen,” Luke 8 reports him as saying. “He who has shall be given more, but from him who does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken away.” Take care how you listen. I am pondering what those words mean for me today as I sift through the vast quantities of words, some of them striking carelessly at issues close to the heart of my faith.