|
|
Journeyman
A Journal for the Inquiring Christian
Feature Article …
Digital Catholics
| Overview: Post-modern man isn't supposed to debate and think. So what's going on here? |
The drama of radical change in human thought and conduct is a fascinating study. When considered especially in the arena of faith, the machinery that influences such a change is a study all of its own. In a specifically Christian framework we are used to thinking in terms of apologia or apologetics as a means to successfully captivate the mind of the skeptic through penetrating syllogisms.
Apologetics exercised among atheists and agnostics is one thing; apologetics among fringe cultists is another. The hairiest kind of apologetics, however, tends to be the inter-Christian kind; one mega-branch of faith versus the other, both claiming similar apostolic roots and both insisting on fidelity to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. It is precisely this enterprise that one can find most readily in today's quicksilver medium called the Internet. Since the online revolution of the mid-90's digital apologetics has exponentially grown. With little ambition and a decent search engine you can quickly find hundreds of websites with Protestant versus Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic versus Orthodox, and Orthodox versus Protestant debate forums and articles. The new age of apologetics is upon us. Though the goal of apologetics has not changed — yet the method of the task takes on a different feel. It's not C.S. Lewis' world anymore.
Somewhat sympathetic to the digital apologetics phenomenon, I consider my own theological persuasions heavily influenced through the “Web.” My own introduction to what I would call conciliar Catholicism (Eastern Orthodoxy) is owed largely to the efforts of folks (Roman and Orthodox) who make it their business to persuade people of the merits of catholic theology. In hindsight I find this business about cyber-apologetics complex. The medium seems a bit schizophrenic. It cures and it kills, or at least potentially so. The internet is a happy and sad tale all at once. A few observations about the nature of apologetics through this medium can be applied broadly to other disciplines, but we should note the factors and contributions of cyber-apologetics, whether for good or for ill. For now, let's look at the upshot of apologetics on the internet medium.
Streaming Religion, Then and Now
No matter how hokey or heretical we label those televangelism TV stations (which they are), they seized upon the evangelistic mandate found in Matthew and Acts, and have been riddling the airwaves with their brand of Christianity for the past 30 years. For whatever reasons, and maybe Francis Schaeffer would concur, the conservative Christian groups were slow to make good use of this medium. Regardless, the sheer number of people these stations “reach” is frightening.
The experiment worked beautifully for television. With the internet explosion we have seen the same thing, except now the tables have turned. We haven't rid ourselves of hokey web-sites or URL's, but we have very solid options to investigate competing theologies — in the comfort of our own home. Whether we like it or not, the internet is a safe-haven of anonymity. Anyone can proselytize anyone else with virtually any kind of message cushioned by a virtual impunity. That guarantees a proliferation of positive religious content.
No longer do the TBN's of this world “own” the co-ax. People who feel the ruinous effects of bad religion are suddenly surrounded, if you will, by a cloud of witnesses. In no time at all they can find a barrage of helpful sites equipped to address the tough theological questions. In the televangelism kingdom, one was essentially stuck with programming that is carefully controlled by the producers. The content, no matter how silly, is still decorated and sculpted to give the illusion that there is nothing else out there. The internet destroys that notion. Search engines don't care about what side you're on. In many ways, the internet comes closer to a menu that represents the market of ideas. People have real options to investigate the truth.
No, We All Can't Just Get Along
One of the pleasantries of cyber-apologetics is the amount of material on the web in a debate format. Whether in streaming audio, video, or vanilla text, the manly art of debating can more easily be found. Over against the airwaves, which can hardly allow for serious (and long) debates (especially in a religious context), the internet facilitates numerous debates that are forcing people to address the concepts of good argumentation. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the internet isn't relegated to one strata of American culture. From scholars to armchair theologians, everyone is in the mix, and everyone is reading (whether we will admit it or not) the other guy's “stuff.” The smoldering mound of ash that once was Debate becomes the phoenix that must rise in the midst of so many conflicting worldviews.
The television arena cannot tolerate debate as such. It's not designed to accommodate worldviews in conflict. Television is the wealthiest producer's philosophy journal. His ideas simply aren't up for debate. In short, a sound-bite refutation of the “other guy's” belief system is the most you can get from popular television. In contrast, the cyber-seekers have at their disposal hundreds of point/counter-point dialogues that substantially surpass a half-hour sitcom's attempt to address weighty issues like abortion or euthanasia.
If this is true for “secular” television, it's even truer for “religious” broadcasting. It really is presuppositional apologetics' evil twin. In that playing field, the tele-prophet does not allow for examination, only acceptance. If entertaining enough, loud enough, sweaty enough, and charismatic enough, he's portrayed as carrying the true message. It's no accident that the choicest stereotype of TV-Christianity falls into the Charismatic/Pentecostal/Fundamentalist camp. They were the pioneers of religious TV. They trained non-religious America to believe this is what Christianity is all about.
The internet culture has these folks in the mix, but it is a mix nonetheless. The so-called Postmodern culture challenges everything, and nothing is taken for granted. The new “seekers” who grew up in the Bible-belt are getting a glimpse of other expressions of Christianity. Nobody told these folks it was okay to argue about matters of faith among themselves. The dot-com apologists come along and make bold assertions about the truthfulness of catholic theology, and the only adequate response by the die-hard fundamentalists is to deal with the claims — and some are doing that well.
Post-Modern or Pre-Renaissance?
From my vantage point, I don't see “Post-modernism” as that big of a threat. More than ever, catholic theology is getting a hearing that it has not had for the last 30 years. One could possibly argue Pope John Paul's call to a new evangelism has sparked this presence on the internet. But the internet has perpetuated this appetite for examination. People want to get the scoop on all this catholic stuff. Orthodoxy is also getting a wider audience. The new wave of fundamentalist converts won't last in their bubble very long. If they have a computer, they'll quickly understand the not-so-cut-and-dry nature of their belief system. Catholics have a unique opportunity to take advantage of this.
It may be that we're on the brink of a renaissance of some sort. Post-modern thinking could arguably be a cultural stage that is really short-lived. Like the little boy who packs up his suitcase and runs away from his restrictive parents, but three blocks later realizes how much he really needs mom and dad, so too the post-modern culture is sensing the loss of grounded thinking and faith. The internet can only augment this sense of loss. There is a hunger for the return to “mom and dad.” Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians on-line are receiving droves of home-sick people. Perhaps it will be these “digital” converts who will carry the torch for the next 70 years.
On the Other Hand …
We cannot discount some of the obvious downfalls of digital religion. There can be negative effects that might undo some of the good that is accomplished through on-line apologetics. Among these concerns are the following.
- Syncretism. One of the scarier things I've seen is the mish-mashing of theological systems. The internet is a breeding ground for synthesis and warping. People who jump into the fray might not be familiar enough with their own belief-system. Unseemly theological bedfellows will come to light, and the new “seekers” might be duped into thinking this is the “ancient” faith. I saw one website that claimed to be faithful to the Lutheran confessions all-the-while accepting Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic paradigms. In trying to affirm everything it ended up affirming nothing. This leads into the next possible downfall.
- Pseudo-scholarship. The sheer vastness of the internet dropped into the lap of popular American culture is a double-edged sword. People who want quick answers (which Americans do) might substitute a URL for deep and thoughtful research. The outcome is a host of new websites making very inaccurate claims about theological systems. Then whole debates form around a misunderstanding or misuse of information. There's a good chance that solidly defined terms and phrases will suffer at the hands of over-night apologists. I can't count how many times I've seen the term semi-Pelagian thrown around to accuse Catholics of heresy. It's an irresponsible use of neat $20 theological words.
- The I-Wanna-Kick-Some-Butt-Too Syndrome. The internet exaggerates apologetics. Christians glamorize their favorite apologist, and put up sites with little restraint to mow down their opponent. Some of the most ungodly dialogue has come out of the new apologetics websites (on both sides). The professional-wrestling atmosphere generated by some Catholic and Protestant apologists does not serve us very well. The internet has no FCC per se, so Christians from both sides of the camp need to exercise a little more charity and reserve the harsh words for when it really counts.
These aren't my only concerns, but it should make us realize that the internet isn't the solution to our thought problems. It poses some interesting possibilities for evangelism and apologetics. The internet is still a relatively young public tool. In 20 years we'll be able to analyze the long-term effects of cyber-religion. Will the digital Catholics be around in 20 years to recount their conversion through the influences of the internet? Or will they have moved on out of boredom? I want to believe the leaven of the Kingdom will reach farther and produce more fruit than ever before. I think the Church has no choice but to make Her presence known in this new “community.” Much like Saint Augustine's view of the Barbarian invasion of the Roman Empire, we too can view the world as coming to our doorstep for evangelism. Catholics must learn how to use cyberspace wisely; and so far it looks very encouraging. Now about those Roman Catholics …
|
|