In case you missed it, here is a great video released last week on the rise of the Internet, called “Did You Know 4.0″.
The statistics in the video are startling for sure. But they confirm what we intuitively already know – as a culture, we’re completely overloaded with information, especially the younger up-and-coming generation.
As the communications director at a church that has a average age of 26 or so, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the challenges that the Internet creates for us – and the Church at large – in terms of engaging people with the gospel. I’m going to be sharing here some of my thoughts on the subject over a few posts.
In this post I want to discuss why I think the Internet, and specifically social media, is ushering a fresh and new challenge for the church that I don’t think we’ve fully articulated, and that I’m not sure we are adequately prepared to engage. To be clear, I’m figuring out my thoughts on this as I go, and hope to open a healthy dialogue on this topic. Input from you will be much valued.
Post-Modernism is Dying
If you’re like me, much of your ministry training in terms of apologetics has been focused on contextualizing the Gospel for a post-modern mindset. And while this is important, I’ve got this sneaking suspicion that we’re fighting a battle that has already been lost in some respects. While we decry post-moderns, the reality is that the world has pretty much wholesale accepted this philosophy, which has been moving full force since the 1960’s. My concern is that as a church we may be fighting old battles and not seeing the new threats on the horizon.
I’ve been thinking that post-modernism is dying. It’s on it’s last legs. Taking its place is what I’ll call Digitalism. Whereas Post-Modernism (in simplified terms) was the subjection of truth to cultural context, Digitalism is the subjection of truth to personal context.
In a post-modern world, there was still some semblance of universal truth, granted it was solely within the realm of culture. But the reality was that you were still held accountable to the truth by those whom you interacted with within your culture. The reality of day-to-day interactions necessitated that people would call you on your crap and bring you in line with cultural truth. Why? Because whether you liked it or not, you were forced to be exposed to people of varying opinions, and more often than not, the majority opinion – public truth – was still upheld, and you were expected to adhere to it.
Whereas Post-Modernism was the subjection of truth to cultural context, Digitalism is the subjection of truth to personal context.
In the world of Digitalism, we are no longer forced to interact with those who disagree with us. Through our various Internet interactions, especially our social media platforms, we can easily delete friends from our lives who would dare to question our version of reality – our personal truth. For the Digitalists, the ego is supreme. Truth is derived completely from within, all reality is subjectified to personal taste, preference, and experience – and most importantly, only those who carry the same truth, or who are willing to not question that truth, are sought out to become part of community. Digitalists are creating worlds within worlds. Worlds that are not bounded geographically, but instead ideologically.
So my question is: How Does the Church Engage the Digitalists?
Part two of this series will explore some of my thoughts on what we are doing right and what I think we might do better to engage this cultural shift in its early stages. But in the meantime, I’d be very curious to hear your thoughts.
1. Do you believe that post-modernism is dying? If so, what are your thoughts on the concept of digitalism I’ve presented here?
2. What do you see as the important strategies we need to employ as the church to engage the Digitalists?
Jake – GREAT post. I like your term “Digitalist”. I do believe that post-modernistic apologetics are losing steam and agree with your definition as “subjecting the truth to your personal context”.
I believe you have previously posted about using social media as a strategy to draw people into gospel community, not as a means of community itself. I think that our personal contexts need to be brought back into a cultural context, a context that digitalization seems to be speedily removing us from.
I like your use of the term “digitalism” as it describes what I believe is the state of human interaction on all levels, even as post-modernism fades into the sunset of time.
While the tools are there for introduction to the Gospel, and the ability to reach more for Christ and get the message out…human interaction has IMHO, become lost. We now send digital hugs, typed prayers, and emoticons and ASCII characters to express our feelings and actions in 140 characters or less. Sure, there are still many good works being done in local churches, but more and more, we are connected to our devices, whether iPhones, desktops or blackberries. We can communicate the love of God..but I am concerned that “reach out and touch someone” has been lost. That eye-to-eye contact has gone missing in the midst of the digitalism age.
Don’t get me wrong, I attend and serve at an online body of believers with occasional forays to a real building. I love the sense of community at my church…and participate as much as possible. BUT, there are times when I believe that all the typing and twittering and FBing is insufficient. There is nothing that compares to touch of a fellow human for a suffering brother or sister, or the real joy of corporate worship.
What comes to mind most is the history of the early church as found in Acts…(Acts 2:42). If we could somehow capture this devotion in a more meaningful way-I truly believe we would not only engage the Digitalists..but grow the church. How? I haven’t a clue really. What I do know is that there really isn’t a substitute for transparent human interaction. And I have to wonder, in this digital age, are we running from that?
A few thoughts:
First, the more and more I intereact with post-modern literature, the more difficulty that I have believing that it really exists. I, at one time, thought of myself as post-modern, but I think that it was a reaction to something. I was missing Christianity at my church!
In spite of the truth or otherwise regarding post-modernity, the truth is that many of us are seeking the wealth that comes in the form of tradition that has been set aside. It is something that I was exposed to by way of Dan Kimball’s first book and sent me on this tailspin ride of post-modernity. He captures in that book how rather than a new faith, a tried and true faith is something that we are more and more often finding attractive.
When we step into “digitalism” there is definitely a different world to explore. I am not sure that in-grouping happens any more in the net world than it does in the “real” world. I have intentionally sought out people who do not agree with me (see my blog and my “following” list on twitter). I have appreciated those dynamics and continue to seek out conversation to strengthen my own faith.
Finally, I think that the reaction that I have had is to the lack of solid Christian doctrine in our churches. As we branch out into the world of social media, we should not continue to be distracted from this important issue. In recent years our efforts to become “relevant” have caused us to focus on the culture more than on Christ. Alternatively, if we focus on Christ, teach doctrine in our music as well as our preaching, and instill that strength of belief in the people already attending our churches, we the a number of things:
1) a group of people who are able to see subtle non-truths and weed them out
2) a group of people empowered to seek out others and confidently share their faith
3) a new group of people who see that confidence and hear the truth from those whom we have empowered and thus a stronger church
4) a wider and more challenging influence on our world where Christ can be preached and where people learn to confidently live “in Christ alone.”
Just my random thoughts; thanks for bringing this post to my attention, jakers. I don’t know how I have missed your blog before, but I am now a subscriber!
I don’t know if you know my work, but I’ve just published a book which argues that postmodernism is over and I nominate what I call “digimodernism” as its successor.
http://www.amazon.com/Digimodernism-Technologies-Dismantle-Postmodern-Reconfigure/dp/1441175288
Although I wouldn’t necessarily describe myself as a believer my mind and heart are open and I do believe that the era after postmodernism will see (and is already seeing) great developments in our understanding of the divine, the sacred and the infinite.
Donna – Thanks for your thoughts. I’d be interested to hear more about the in’s and out’s of how you do Internet ministry. What I want to explore more in this series is whether we are enabling and syncretizing with digitalism by our current ministry efforts online or whether we are creating ministry environment that will challenge and possible offend the prevailing culture.
Aaron – I agree whole-heartedly that preaching Christ has been, is, and will be the most important function of the Church. Much like you I was very enamored with post-modernism and thus emergent theology.
Though I haven’t read Dan’s book, I can identify with what you’ve indicated he wrote about. I spent six years in the Episcopal Church trying to find an “authentic” expression of Christianity. Ultimately, my studies solidified my doctrine, and I realized liturgy was important but meaningless if it wasn’t undergirded by sound doctrine.
To your point about seeking out others that think differently than you, I believe that the church must do this to survive in the digital age. However, my concern is that most people will simply be able to “block” or delete our efforts – effortlessly. I think there is a difference between blowing off a person in flesh and blood, and “flaming” a digital persona. Thoughts?
My concern going forward will be how we are approaching digitalism ecclesiastically. I’ll look forward to your input.
Dr. Kriby – I wasn’t aware of your work, but I’m glad you’ve made me aware of it. I figured there was some work on this in the academic circles, but haven’t come across anything that deals with it specifically in the a Christian context.
I’ll definitely be checking out your work. I just printed out your article from Philosophy Now, and look forward to reading it.
Besides your book, is there any other work you would suggest I delve into?
Thanks for your thoughts.
[...] am grateful to Kem Meyer who tweeted her thanks to Xplane for a great media. And, to Jake for finding [...]
Jake,
Really fascinating stuff here. There is definitely something profound that you’ve really got a pulse on. The notion of Digitalism represents not only a philosophical shift, but also occupies that rare territory of vernacular that nearly entirely defines a pragmatic shift in lifestyle. I think there are threads of this cultural shift that could represent a more significant movement towards our turf than away from it.
The first thought that stuck out to me was the Digitalistic precept of Truth derived from experience. I think the ingredient of experience in defining reality has always been there. What is remarkable to me about the ingredient of experience is how ambiguous it is. In fact, I believe it’s ambiguity, and at times wholly otherness, is what instills in us a need ask questions and patch together a reality. It seems to me that the need is most frequently satisfied by storyform. The most significant shift I see is where we get the story. It went from a story that placed upon us, to a story defined by the clear facts we could all agree upon, to a story formed in conversation embracing any and everything that could molded and made to fit an ever changing reality. I wonder if Digitalism no longer asks the question as a dialogue, but as a lifelong internal monologue. As you said, ultra-personal, ego driven storyform.
This very personalized Truth, to me, might connect to the Christian culture more readily than we think. After all, the Christian faith was founded and expanded on nothing more than a few very simple (though profound) tenants and the proclamation of personal experience (testimony). When I read the sermons in Acts, and many of the letters of Apostles, often the most impassioned argument was not primarily built upon the basis of reason. They relied heavily on their profound experiences. Take Paul’s defense in the court of King Agrippa in Acts 26. With his very life at stake in this trial, he does nothing more than tell his personal story of conversion and salvation. The dramatic nature of his transformation, not the sterile facts of the Gospel, gets him off the hook. He would turn to his experience over and over again.
For Christians, the Digitalism Movement may represent an opportunity to reconnect to a Gospel communicated through real lives transformed. Individual stories of supernatural intervention, personal redemption, and spiritual transformation. I feel like I’ve grown up into a Christian culture that has a lot to say about the idea of God and little to say about our experiences with a dynamic, present, living God. We want public theology, communal life therapy, and personal (even top secret) spiritual identity. Maybe it’s cause we’re afraid of cliche… or maybe it’s cause we just don’t have any thing to say. Either way, maybe Digitalism, for all it’s shortcomings, could provide a way forward.
Daniel,
Thanks for your thoughts and for stopping by and making a great comment. I was hoping you’d make it over here soon! All the things you mention are good points. But I’m worried about the implications of relying on the personal story (a conversion experience) in a culture that is so ego driven. Though the role of the personalized story is important in Biblical narrative, the story of the Gospel – the arc of God’s redemptive story for all creation – is found in a communal mandate.
For instance God speaks to Abraham and that through him all the nations of the earth will be blessed. The outpouring of the holy spirit (a very experiential event) was accomplished in corporate worship, we are told that when two or more are gathered together that God is with them, and the daily rhythms of the early church clearly placed an emphasis on public gathering.
I’m tipping my hand a bit here on some of the topics I want to cover going forward. I’m concerned that our ecclesiological attempts to engage digitalists (i.e. – online campuses) may be actually (and unintentionally) syncretizing the worst elements of the digitalist culture with the church rather than using the parts of that culture that are conducive to the Gospel to draw them into meaningful Christian community. More on this in later posts.
I agree with your thoughts on digitalism, but I would say post modernism is just in the beginning stages. I say that because there is plenty of modern thought that remains in our churches and in our society. We won’t truly be postmodern until those are less dominant..and right now I think modern thought is still the dominant stream.
Thanks for your thoughts, Tyler. Can you give some examples of modernist mindset in the prevailing culture? And flesh out your ideas on post-modernism being just in the beginning stages?
My thought is that form and content must be differentiated to redeem the digital. The (philosophical?) form of ultra-personalized digital narrative (if there is such a thing) must be fit with the content of Biblical truth. However, for a Christian who is being transformed this ought not be as dangerous or difficult as it seems. If we believe and agree that all Good things come from God and that his power has become, and is increasingly becoming, a life directing, mind-forming, heart-altering force in our lives; then how could we begin to tell our personal story apart from the foundational truths, inseparable identity, and pervasive story of the Gospel. In fact, it seems that Digitalism’s form and focus may even support this because things like Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, and all that is about the day to day. One crazy conversion experience is trumped on Twitter by the persistent, honest, humorous, and insightful commentary of a life exposed. Logistics may be a bigger battle as we figure out what rhythms just can’t be accomplished in front of a computer screen.
[...] is the second post in a series on doing ministry in a post-Christian, digital society. In the first post, I explored what I perceive to be a cultural shift from post-modernism to what I defined as [...]
[...] Virtual church membership. Is it legit? Church Crunch discusses here. Ties in with my series on the internet and ministry here. [...]
[...] third and final post in my series on ministry and the internet. You can catch up on the other posts here and [...]
Good observations re: the demise of postmoderns. Most of those we call “postmodern” no longer use the term.
And re: the latest “Did You Know” video.
Like all the previous DYK videos, the statistics are impressive, as you say, but the analysis (or lack there of) less so.
Two examples:
“The number of unique visitors to American network TV vs. MySpace, FB, & YouTube: 10M vs. 250M”
Potential audience for American television vs. global internet –
the percentage of total population:
10M out of 308 M in the US = 3.24%
250M out of 6.8B in the world = 3.67%
I’m no statistician, but am pretty sure that’s a statistically insignificant difference (tho’ a pretty big, impressive number!)
“What used to fit in a building now fits in your pocket. What fits in your pocket now will fit inside a blood cell in 25 years.”
This statement is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism – that the current rate of change will remain the same over the next 25 years. (It’s also the basis of old-earth evolutionists dating of the earth.) That same faulty assumption was the basis of Thomas Malthus’ fear-mongering that the world would soon be so overpopulated that we would run out of food. The fact is, as technology improves and new technologies are invented all the time, we have no reliable way to estimate how much data & how powerful a computer could be that might possibly fit inside a blood cell 25 years from now.
Thank, Keith. Great points to keep in mind.
[...] this is a prime example of emergence of digitalism and digitalist culture, which I wrote about here. The inherent narcism of the Internet and digital media is leading to men who are unable to love [...]