You might have noticed that it’s been a little quite here in the past few months.
In the background, I’ve been working on an application for a PhD in theology and religion at the University of Durham. My hope is to study how people understand Scripture and they activities they do with it as they transition from print media to digital media. My basic premise is that the shift from oral to print has introduced new emphases with regard to Scripture and new ways of navigating and understanding it, and we are in the midst of new shifts with digital media that will likely take some time to fully realize.
After months of preparation, I’m happy to say that I was accepted to the program and will begin studying in April. My employer, Dallas Theological Seminary, has generously offered a 4-month sabbatical for my family and I to move to Durham to begin studies and I will finish the remainder back in Dallas.
I’d like to thank a few people for making this possible including Tim Hutchins (who has already done much work in this area), Heidi Campbell (who has been a constant encourager and amazingly prolific writer over recent years), Andrew Byers (who treated me so well on my visit to Durham and continues to offer assistance in our transition), Pete Phillips (who runs the amazing CODEC group at Durham and allowed me to visit his office), and Matthew Guest (the advisor who agreed to take me on in the project). There are many others here at home who’ve been most helpful as well.
Hopefully, I’ll continue to use this blog as an outlet for research as it comes and for additional thoughts unrelated to digital Bibles.
Today, churches all over the country cancelled services because of dangerous, icy road conditions. Many resorted to online only streaming services and pre-recorded events from years past.
Thankfully technology is coming that will ensure churches never again have to close their doors during a storm.
1. Powerless lighting
Technological advances may one day create a kind of lighting system capable of running even when electricity is unavailable. It sounds like science fiction, but it may one day make worship possible around the clock.
2. Unamplified Instruments
Even “pagans” want this one – instruments capable of generating sound without the use of amplifiers. Now we just need vocalists who can sing without monitors – perhaps an entire group of them signing together would work!
3. Genetically Modified Transportation Animals
As a genetics major, I’m really excited about this one. It’s possible that during our lifetime animals may be created that can traverse even the iciest fields. I’m told they also have built in navigation systems capable of avoiding other drivers.
4. Pastoral Housing
As churches grow larger, it is likely that they will soon be able to include rooms for pastors to live in, ensuring the flock will never be without its shepherd.
5. Local Messaging Systems
To find out what was happening at my church, I first checked the website and then was directed to Facebook. In the future, some churches may opt to put large metal objects on top of their buildings that, when struck by another metal object, could carry audio messages to the surrounding community.
Depending on your background, the term “inerrancy” might be a vaguely familiar idea that means something like “authority” or “trustworthiness” or, conversely, it might refer to an idea invented by fundamentalists that is at best unhelpful.
But whatever your background with the idea, you’ll likely be hearing more about it soon on the heals of Zondervan’s new book Five Views on Inerrancy and events surrounding its publication such as the Evangelical Theological Society’s recent debate (live blog) by the authors of the book.
We’ll touch on the meaning of inerrancy below, but first the point of this post is to propose that the development of the idea of inerrancy came about in part because of the printing press and the attitudes and expectations created by printed books.
What is Inerrancy?
For scholars, the term “inerrancy” comes with many technical definitions. Wayne Grudem defined inerrancy saying, “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Systematic Theology, 91) and more recently Al Mohler writes, “The Bible is ‘free from all falsehood or mistake’.” (c.f. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy).
On the surface this doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult concept, but as Mohler says the devil is in the details. When a perfect God works through a fallen person, what exactly would it mean for Scripture to have a “mistake” or something that is “contrary to fact”?
For example, today we use the term “four corners of the earth” as an expression, but when the author of Revelation used the phrase (Rev. 7:1) did he think there really were four corners of the earth? If so, is that “mistake”? Or is it God working through the language and customs of the time? Or something else?
What about the ages of men in Genesis (any over 900 years)? Are those to be taken as scientifically accurate dates that are either chronologically right or wrong? Or was the author doing what many people did in the Ancient Near East which was to use “age” not as an index of time, but as an index of importance? If so, again, is this “contrary to fact” or God working through the language and expectations of the original culture of readers? Or is the Bible just wrong on many factual matters but still correct when it comes to spiritual issues?
The examples could go on and on, but it is worth pointing out that in the last major “Battle for the Bible” which took place in the 1970s and ‘80s, some evangelical theologians took the position that they could still affirm biblical authority and infallibility, but not the technical idea of inerrancy. As Marsden tells the story in Reforming Fundamentalism many theologians essentially had the same basic view of Scripture, but struggled with the term “inerrancy” itself and all that it connotes. Today the debate is bubbling up again because of new concerns about what exactly constitutes an “error” and what can be considered the conventions of the literary genre.
While this is very interesting and will likely continue to be an important issue among evangelicals, its important to note that underneath the issue of “error” is an idea about “error” that can be traced, in part, from the move from hand-written texts to printed texts.
Gutenberg, Luther, and Erasmus
Gutenberg’s first printing press came online in 1450. When we talk about the printing press and Christianity, we often point out that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door in 1517 and then later used the printing press to great effect when distributing his German translation of the Bible.
But what we don’t normally mention is that Erasmus published the first critical edition of the Greek New Testament the year before in 1516. (A critical text is one that compares several hand-written copies of the Bible and notes where there are differences. For example, the ending of Mark is not in many early manuscripts, and Erasmus’ critical text noted all such known variations.)
An interesting question is: why was Erasmus’ generation the first to think of creating such comparative editions of the Bible?
The Value System of Print
Before the age of print, a book was something decidedly human. Each copy and every letter therein could be traced to living, breathing, fallible human being. Books were written by humans, copied by humans, ready aloud by humans, and listened to by humans.
But in the print age, a book was a product manufactured by a machine capable of precision and perfection. Every letter was an exact replica of the one before it and every page in one book matched the same page in the same edition of the same text.
Erasmus was part of the first generation raised with this new technology and its value system founded on the idea that texts should not vary from copy to copy. So when Erasmus encountered differences among hand-copied Bibles, he looked at them differently than previous generations of Christians who never expected books to be perfect replicas of one another. That’s not to say previous generations of Christians were unaware of such changes – Origen, Augustine, Aquinas and others commented on textual variations – but Erasmus and the generations that followed him devoted much more attention to textual criticism, and this study was both influenced and supported by the printing press.
Most of the changes he and others found were minor, but they were enough to create an entire field of study (biblical criticism) that didn’t exist before. More importantly, these differences among copies of the Bible started causing some people to doubt the trustworthiness of the Scriptures themselves.
As the story goes, seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenment thinkers began to question the historicity of certain parts of the Bible, especially anything miraculous. Modern, scientific man need not and could not believe in things like parting the Red Sea and resurrection from the dead. And though many of these critiques were over the content of the Bible, it was also subtly about biblical media – silly, hand-copied legends could never compete with rigorous scientific data hot off the printing press.
Up to this point, all Christians had affirmed the authority, trustworthiness, and truthfulness of the Bible. The scribes who copied it did their best to copy every letter and every word with precision and care. And yet minor mistakes and human variations in copying were just a part of their reality and part of what made a Bible beautiful.
It seems clear that the reason people like Erasmus started taking more note of the differences is that using the technology of print inculcated the expectation of perfect texts. This is important because the inerrancy debate is primarily concerned with the perfection of the biblical texts. The Scriptures teach us that God himself is perfect, but it is the technology of print that teach us us to expect a kind of perfection from our texts.
Fighting Fire with Fire
It was in this context of biblical criticism that inerrancy emerged as a new way of re-establishing biblical authority in scientific and technological terms. Conservative theologians felt they couldn’t simply restate the historical view that the Bible is authoritative – they needed to do so through the lenses new media (print) provided.
Notice how Grudem’s definition is specifically concerned not merely with the content itself but with contentrespect to media. Instead of just saying that the Bible has no factual errors, his definition qualifies the lack of errors by saying there were none “in the originalmanuscripts.”
Grudem is arguing that some of the “errors” people find the Bible are really just mistakes in copying and if we had the original manuscripts, it would clear up what appears to be contradictions.
But notice that at its core this statement contrasts two forms of media: handwritten copies of the Bible and printed replicas of the Bible. What this means is that to understand, debate, affirm, or deny the concept of “inerrancy,” one must be familiar with print and its value system.
Put another way, inerrancy is a post-print doctrinal orientation.
Affirm, Deny, or Ignore?
Those who reject inerrancy often claim that it is a 19th century invention foreign to the early church. Conversely, inerrantists often claim inerrancy is the historical position of the church. I hope to have argued that neither position is truly accurate.
I am neither criticizing nor defending inerrancy (disclosure: inerrancy is one the seven doctrines students must affirm at the institution where I work), but pointing out that whether you affirm inerrancy, reject it, or simply find it unhelpful or unnecessary, these are postures only those familiar with printed books and the value system of the Print Age can take.
Again, this is evident in the way many definitions of inerrancy hinge upon the new realities created by print media and the kinds of things people today consider to be “mistakes” or “errors.”
The development of the concept of inerrancy doesn’t make it true or false, it simply means that answering the question of authority in this way was not required of pre-print Christians. And yet, whether we like it or not, it is a question we must to wrestle with today.
For those of us deeply concerned with fully affirming that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful …” (2 Tim 3:16), we must articulate what that means within our own cultural setting, even as that setting is again shifting media: this time from print to digital.
A few weeks ago, the Microsoft Office blog posted an infographic showing how the new Office 365 products allow workers to get more done since the tools are now available everywhere – in every room of the house, at the kids’ soccer games, in bed, and so on.
I know they are trying to show how good the Office 365 products are, but when you look at the infographic below it really looks like something made by someone with a darkly sarcastic sense of humor, mocking our inability to disconnect.
It seems like it would be better marketing to show that you can get your work done faster so you don’t have to work during happy hour, in bed, at the game, or on the toilet.
Update: the great folks at 37Signals seems to have felt the same about Microsoft’s promotion and countered with their own #WorkCanWait campaign.
Check out their tongue-in-cheeck update below and then go to their website to create your own:
In a long-awaited announcement, the FAA will stop requiring passengers to turn off phones and computers during take-off and landing. Under the old rules you had to keep them off (“that’s fully off and powered down, not airplane mode, not hidden in your pocket” as some flight attendants used to say) until the airplane rose above 10,000, but that ceiling has now been removed.
You still can’t actually talk on the phone, but you can keep reading, playing games, or writing emails as long as you like. Apparently, while the FAA used to say that phone signals could interfere with the plane, they now that’s not usually the case although carriers must demonstrate that their planes can withstand the interference. Here’s the statement:
Passengers will eventually be able to read e-books, play games, and watch videos on their devices during all phases of flight, with very limited exceptions. Electronic items, books and magazines, must be held or put in the seat back pocket during the actual takeoff and landing roll. Cell phones should be in airplane mode or with cellular service disabled – i.e., no signal bars displayed—and cannot be used for voice communications based on FCC regulations that prohibit any airborne calls using cell phones. If your air carrier provides Wi-Fi service during flight, you may use those services. You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, like wireless keyboards.
So What Does it Mean?
Airline takeoff and landing was probably one of the final places in modern life where phones were absolutely not tolerated. It stood out as the place where you couldn’t readily turn away from an awkward (or interesting) conversation. Now that this ban is gone, it seems a whole line of stand-up and sitcom humor will almost be completely forgotten.
I don’t of course think this is the downfall of society or a major breakdown in face-to-face reality. I personally love working on a plane where I don’t have all the distractions of my office or home, but I have read reports that people today have much less eye-contact with other human beings than they once did and this contributes to depression and other problems. So I do lament what the represents even if, like most of us, I’m glad for the change and what it means for my personal productivity.
I have a friend who manually unplugs the family Wi-Fi every night at 10:00pm.
Dad and mom have to be done with work and kids need to be done with homework and socializing because the Internets are dead after 10pm. It seems like a lot of work to go plug and unplug the Wi-Fi, but he does it because he cares about his family and wants to be intentional about their time, relationships, and physical health.
What if you could have that level of control, but not have to physically unplug the network every day? Enter a new Kickstarter project called Circle. The team sent me a link this week, and I thought it is something worth mentioning.
From their website
Circle helps families balance their lives in our screen-driven world. These days, we’re always connected. Circle is a device, managed by an iOS app, that enables you to choose how you and your family spend time online by using advanced filtering, time management systems and informing to answer the where, when, why, and how of your network’s Internet activity.
My own children are too small to have their own devices, but I know that day is coming. We desperately want to protect their little minds as long as we can, but also progressively give them more and more responsibility as they grow, so that when they leave our home they will have the mental and spiritual tools to discipline their own lives. But right now, we withhold devices not only because they are too young, but also because I can’t find a way to adequately control them.
That’s why I hope Circle succeeds. I don’t think it will work as a “Set-and-forget” parenting device, but it hopefully will enable parents to give their kids access to devices but in a manner that’s as safe as possible.
So what do you think? Would this be helpful to your family? Is it tech controlling tech controlling tech controlling us? Does it invite kids to try to break the fence or does it help protect them? I’d love to hear what you think.
If you’re interested in the subject of media and technology there are several books toward which I’d like to point you.
First up, I just heard the news that my friend Andy Byers‘s new book entitled, TheoMedia: The Media of God and the Digital Age has just be made available for pre-order from the publisher. What I love about Andy’s work is that it’s not another “how to” book, another set of predictions, or another complainer’s rant. Instead Andy submerges readers deeply into the theological implications of media itself. He reminds us that it was God who created media and who used various media (which Andy gives the name “TheoMedia”) throughout the Biblical stories. He then urges us to think not about how to avoid media, but how to be constantly saturated in the media of God.
His argument kind of turns the typical discussion on its head – in a really, really good way. As a bonus, Andy is a truly gifted writer, a burgeoning New Testament scholar, and just an all around fantastic human being. I had the chance to meet he and his family recently in Durham, England, and they are simply some of the best people around.
Second, I’d like to point you to a great little book called Shaping a Digital World: Faith, Culture and Computer Technology by Derek Shuurman, a computer science professor at Redeemer University College in Canada.
Rather than trying to tackle the entire subject of “technology,” Dr. Shuurman narrows his focus to computer technology, and raises some great questions about how Christians should think through them. He comes from a Reformed background so you’ll notice the influence of thinkers like Abraham Kuyper, but not so much that it isn’t applicable to a broad range of Christians interested in technology. I had the chance to meet Dr. Shuurman at the Christian Engineering Conference a few months ago, and he’s a great guy that I really wish could move a bit further south :).
Finally, there’s an old, but a goody that I was reminded of at a recent trip to Gordon-Conwell for a conference. The Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures: Preaching in the Electronic Age by Gregory Reynolds is a giant tome whose title describes it perfectly. I didn’t get to spend much time with Gregory, but I could tell he deeply cares about Christian preaching and its direction and use in the digital age. His book will doubtless be a huge help to those researching approaches to media and culture in the church.
If any of you have read or come across great new books (or classics) on media and technology, be sure to note them in the comments.
“When I first saw Google Glass, I knew it would offer us a chance to radically reconceive spiritual development.”
That’s what Jace Enders, founder of Second Creation Media in Austin, Texas, told me when describing the app he and his team are creating for Google’s upcoming product called “Glass.” For the uninitiated, Google Glass is one of the first consumer ready “wearable computing” products that, when worn like traditional glasses, lays a small computer screen over one’s field of view offering notifications such as directions, weather, and text messages. It also features a camera for taking audio and video without the need to hold a camera.
But according to Enders, taking photos and getting updates are the least interesting features of Glass. “I want to use wearable computing to help Christians monitor their spiritual development. Like a digital Holy Spirit, our GodFilter app is always there providing guidance, warnings, and encouragement.”
The GodFilter App: Turn Right at the Next Sin
So just what does a digital Holy Spirit actually “look like”? First, what you need to know is that Enders’ app GodFilter is not so much about what you see as much as it is what it sees about you. It’s constantly monitoring what you do on a variety of levels, and then it performs actions based on triggers you set up.
“Let’s say you pull into a parking lot of an adult-oriented establishment,” explains Enders. “GodFilter will cross check with Google Maps, and then either try to dissuade you personally or send a text to your spouse or pastor warning them about what’s going on.”
This, of course, could probably be performed with existing phone technology, but what Enders told me next is a huge leap ahead. “The voice recognition on Glass is astounding. Since it’s always on, we can monitor not just what you say, but how you say it.” This let’s GodFilter detect your mood such as if you’re particularly happy or, more importantly, if you start getting angry.
“When GodFilter hears you raise the volume or pitch of your voice, it guesses that you might be getting frustrated at a situation or person. At a certain level, it will warn you that this isn’t a good time to send emails or texts. We can even remotely shut down your laptop if you allow it.” Though undeniably creepy, for those of us who’ve ever sent an email we later regretted or a text before properly cooling down from a session in Battle School, this sounds like a helpful concept.
The Future Will Be Prude, Or Not
It turns out this is just the beginning. Glass hasn’t even been released to the public yet, but Jace’s team wants to add even more powerful features. For example, they plan to add a visual filter that can make a provocatively dressed person appear more modest.
“You can’t always predict what people will wear these days and rather than worrying about it, Glass lets us paint a jersey on guys playing shirtless basketball or a dress on a woman in a short skirt.”
Though Jace is shy about mentioning this, he is receiving funding from Muslim groups exited about this the possibility of making all women appear to be dressed in traditional Hijab or Burqa clothing that covers all but a woman’s eyes and hands.
“I hate to bring this up, but we’re going to see people creating apps that do the opposite, too. If someone is going to make everyone appear less-clothed, we want to be there with an alternative from day one.” Enders is wiggin’ me out!
The Future of Spirituality is Gamification
To top it all off, Jace’s team is trying to package all this together into a continuously updated rating system. “What if we could give you some kind of indicator that would help you track your spiritual progress? A clear number, like a test score, that’s objective, and that you can share online and compare with others.”
Perhaps detecting my skepticism, Jace compares GodFilter it to existing software like calorie counters or exercise trackers. “Some people really don’t know how much they eat until they start tracking it honestly. GodFilter helps us to the same with sin and holiness. It gives us a perspective of what God sees every day.”
At this point, I can’t help but ask Jace what his score is. “Well, we don’t have the algorithm quite right yet, so I’m not really quite sure.”
But I persist in playing Enders’ game, asking him what little problems areas GodFilter might have uncovered in his life. He brushes me off, “Ha! That’s between me and my accountability partners who have access to my progress indicators. Sometimes it’s great, and sometimes it’s discouraging. But at least I don’t have anything to hide now.”
Is This Really So Far-Fetched?
By now, the discerning reader will have detected my ruse. Of course, there is no Jace Enders and no GodFilter app. Yet.
But while this may seem unimaginable or outlandish today, consider that many Christians are already using digital technologies to help manage spiritual disciples and sinful behaviors. It didn’t take long for Christian groups to create Internet filters to help block unsuspecting eyes (or very intentional ones) from reaching illicit content. Today, those filters evolved into social tools like Covenant Eyes that don’t block violent or pornographic sites, but rather report them to accountability partners.
What about YouVersion, the almost ubiquitous Bible app? It started with the idea of people sharing notes and later transformed into a universal Bible reader. But what is more intriguing than putting Bibles into mobile form is YouVersion’s daily Bible-reading schedules. They don’t just track your progress, they actively remind you on a daily basis to read the next section. Is that not a kind of digitally-based spiritual discipline? If so, in what direction are we heading?
Offloading Spiritual Progress
Like most of us, I’ve offloaded significant amounts of my memory to technology. I no longer know dozens of phone numbers – my phone and desktop contacts are all synced to the cloud. I don’t know who I’m having lunch with tomorrow, but my calendar does. And so on.
In theory, there’s nothing wrong with this mental/digital data dump. Now that my mind no longer has to store useless telephone numbers, I’m free to think about other things.
But what happens when we offload our moral and spiritual progress to a device? Certainly, in the case of daily Bible reading alerts, it seems quite helpful, but is there a point at which we lose something essential to our formation into the image of the Son of God? What about those Bible verses I don’t remember any more, but still know how to find through searching?
At the same, time calorie exercise tracking apps do seem to help people monitor and eventually change their behavior. Couldn’t an app do the same for spiritual progress?
What Is Holiness Anyway?
Believe it or not, my point in all of this is not really to discuss technology or fictional apps. What I’m really trying to do is surface questions about what it truly means to grow spiritually.
I have found that when a new technology comes along, it offers us a new way of doing things and in so doing, it challenges our unexamined assumptions about how things actually work. No doubt, new devices like Google Glass and the inevitable Christian apps developed for it, will require us to confront our thinking about what it means to be conformed into the image of Christ.
If an app can help us do more good things (read our Bible, pray, and so on) and avoid bad things (ogling the body of another, speaking angrily), is that spiritual progress in a truly Christian sense? Would shielding our eyes from unclean things out there make us any cleaner on the inside?
We Christians believe that when we enter into the life of faith in Jesus Christ (i.e. “ask Jesus into our heart,” “become a Christ-follower,” “join the church,” or some other catchphrase), we begin a process of transformation that will not end until we die. From the moment we first believe, we are adopted into the family of God, considered as righteous as God’s own Son, and promised resurrection and restoration. And yet, frustratingly, the fullness of these promises won’t be realized until our Savior returns for his Bride.
In the mean time, however, God has promised, by the Spirit of Christ, to conform us into the likeness of his Son. In Biblical language, this process is called “sanctification,” and it is far deeper than simply sinning less or checking spiritual discipline boxes.
So what then is the secret? How might we move beyond sin management techniques and get to some kind of true change?
If the title of Eugene Peterson’s classic A Long Obedience in the Same Direction is any indication, it will take a few more steps beyond installing an app. That said, Christians throughout the ages have found that regularly engaging in the spiritual disciples like prayer, silence, meditation, Scripture memory, and fasting can be used by the Spirit of God to mold us over time, and if an app helps remind us to do that, I’m pretty sure the Spirit can use that, too.
My generation might best be defined as those who remember watching Pedro Zamora die of AIDS in our living rooms.
If you’re not familiar with Pedro, he was an openly gay, HIV-positive castmember in the third season of MTV’s the Real World which aired in 1994. Those who watched Pedro’s life play out on the tiny 4:3 screens of the time were presented with a high definition portrait of kind young man who didn’t fit any of the caricatures of homosexuality that one might see in the movies or hear about from the pulpit.
He was warm, funny, and extremely thoughtful, always facing his illness and his antagonistic, homophobic roommate “Puck” with a kind of conflicted dignity that captivated viewers.
But just as the Real World: San Francisco started airing that summer, Pedro’s health began deteriorating rapidly, and he was soon diagnosed with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Although MTV offered to pay for his medical expenses, Pedro’s health continued to worsen and, hours after the season finale aired, Pedro died, surrounded by his friends and the family members Bill Clinton had flown in from Cuba.
Not surprising, the gay community mourned the untimely loss of this bright, energetic educator and activist. But what was surprising was that many people who wouldn’t think of themselves as “pro gay” at the time were also deeply affected. Anyone could see that Pedro was a good person who cared about others, and just about anyone would choose him as a friend over some of his heterosexual castmates. No matter what one thought about homosexuality, his death was clearly a great injustice.
The Enfleshing of the Other
Before The Real World began airing that summer, one could afford to conceive of homosexuality an abstract concept, an idea about those people over there whom football players made fun of and preachers condemned. But by the time school was under way in the fall, one began to sense that something more than the colors of the leaves was changing. Macho guys couldn’t fire off a “That’s so gay” attack without feeling at least a tiny twinge of guilt, and church youth group kids (who weren’t supposed to be watching MTV anyway) began to wonder if things were as black and white as they used to be.
Now, make careful note: I’m not referring to people who heard or read about Pedro’s death after the fact (like we’re doing now). In the 1980s and 1990s, there were plenty of stories about people dying of AIDS. And here in 2010s, “reality TV” is just a cheap way to get famous, and gay characters are common on every channel in every genre (Modern Family, Mad Men, Caprica, etc.).
But in the early 1990s, The Real World was just an experiment. It was new and novel, the evolution of a network that no longer played music videos, but still shaped how young people viewed themselves and the world. Watching the The Real World back then actually created sense of getting to know a genuine “real” person.
The result was that long before many of our friends or family members had come out of the closet, Pedro stepped in our living rooms and inoculated us against seeing homosexuality as wholly “other.” It was no longer possible to think about homosexuality without picturing at least one homosexual. We might not want to fully “embrace the other” in a Volfian sense, but we couldn’t easily exclude them either.
Pedro’s Influence Today
Last February, Pedro would have turned 40.
And it turns out that 40 is just about the age where one can see a clear ideological fault line on opinions about gay marriage. A poll by Christianity Today shows those 35 and under tend to support same-sex marriage, while those over 35 tend not to, and this division is present among both those that call themselves “born again” and those who don’t.
Normally, one might be able to chalk this up to the old saying, “If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart; and if you’re not conservative when you’re old, you don’t have a brain.” After all, a recent Lifeway poll showed that young people are also more likely to see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue than their older counterparts. But other data suggest something more complex is going on than youthful naivety or elderly curmudgeony. Another poll by Lifeway Research says that among “born agains” of all ages, over 80% believe that “homosexual behavior is a sin,” but at the same time, those same young people seem to be supportive of gay marriage (or don’t think it should be fought against).
So why do the young at times to agree with the old on the morality of sexual activity, but differ with them when it comes to same-sex marriage? I think the answer is that stories like Pedro’s – so innovative and provocative at such a key time – humanized homosexuality, pulling it out of the abstract and concretizing it in a way that almost forces people who experienced it to separate their ideas about homosexuality from how they feel about homosexuals. After all, it’s much easier to condemn a thing than it is to condemn a person.
This seems to explain the angst many young Christians feel about “the issue” – i.e. they don’t want “it” to be an “issue” at all, because for them homosexuality is just one important aspect of the complex, multi-faceted people they know (or at least watched on TV). They know what the Bible says about sexual activity, and many seem to believe it, but their souls are torn because they can’t easily resolve the tension between what they believe in their minds about an idea and what they feel in their hearts toward their friends. It’s easy to tell a faceless crowd what to do, but it’s much more challenging to look into the eyes of an enfleshed being and do the same.
Where We Go From Here
As one with degrees in genetics and theology and an abounding interest in culture, it might seem natural for me to connect all this to the recent Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Bill Clinton passed the recently struck down DOMA just two years after he helped Pedro’s family get to the US) and the “culture wars” more generally. But instead I’ll keep my “media critic” hat on and direct you back to my central point which is that a single human story, particularly one told via new media, has the power to bend the trajectory of public opinion and throw the feelings and beliefs of a generation into conflict.
The enduring significance of Pedro’s story was that it normalized a way of life that at the time was easy to caricature. Back then, most TV shows portrayed gays as cultural deviants with strange hair and high voices, but Pedro broke every stereotype and served as the archetype of what 12-18 year olds in the 90s thought of men and women who would later be called LGBTQ.
Now, two decades later, following Jesus has in many ways become the new “way of life that is easy to caricature.” The popular media representation of a Christian is often as a cultural outsider with big hair and a loud mouth. Sound familiar?
So I’d like to suggest that Christians today might learn from Pedro’s life and even emulate it in a certain sense. I want to be cautious about misusing the life of a man who died so tragically, but perhaps we too through character and conviction can consciously use the story of our lives (that we are constantly telling and retelling on social media) toward making certain religious stereotypes impossible to believe.
Could you, like Pedro, hold counter-cultural beliefs, and yet be so kind and so courageous that people had trouble dismissing you and your God? When you look back 20 years from now, what will your media footprint say about your God?
@johndyer Thanks for @mediaelementjs How’s a smart guy like you still religious? I thought the logical part of your brain would prevent this
Although the title of this post might make some recall George Orwell’s famous book 1984 or even the Apple ad shown at the Super Bowl that year, I’m actually referring to much smaller, probably entirely unknown event.
The 1984 World’s Fair in New Orleans
As part of my mom’s current downsizing project, she gave me a folder full of old keepsakes. One of these was a little coloring book from Louisiana World’s Fair held in New Orleans in 1984.
Below is the cover and the first few pages:
If you look closely, you’ll notice a few things. First off, apparently I wasn’t the most gifted “inside the lines” colorer of all time.
But more importantly, you can see that the book was printed in a dot matrix style with my full name “John Dyer” and the name of the person who acquired this for me: “Granddad Dyer.” In the subsequent pages, you’ll notice a few more customizations: my name is used several more times, there is a reference to me as “young man” and my “very special grandfather,” and then on the last page our old address in Mississippi is printed out.
I was only about 5 at the time, so I don’t remember the Fair or how this was done, but I imagine that at the time this was a fairly impressive project. The theme of the 1984 Fair was “The World of Rivers—Fresh Waters as a Source of Life” and the booklet references a special “River of Life” exhibit put on by the Churches of Christ (wikipedia | equip). The back cover refers to a company called Ideact in Knoxville (there is a still a YellowPages reference to them, but when I called them the number is no longer valid) which was evidently tasked with producing some kind of live printing system for the exhibit.
My guess is that they had a walkup computer terminal of some kind that allowed people to enter their name and a few details, and then it “magically” printed a booklet right on the spot that recalled the exhibit.
Imagine how cool that would be in an era before most people had a computer in the home.
30 Years Later
Today, believers around the world are experimenting with ways to use technology to communicate the Gospel, and I find examples like this to be great reminders that we stand in a long line of men and women who have been doing this a lot longer than us.
By God’s Spirit, I hope they succeeded in reaching a few.