If one considers it, the century literally started with a hotly contested election (A.D. 2000), followed by the worst attack on U.S. soil (A.D. 11 September 2001). Things did not greatly improve from there.
Added to the mix was the fact the for the first time in world history, both news and opinions became almost instantaneous, brought together by technology that linked the world in real time (the InterWeb, the "computer in your pocket" we call a smart phone that comes with a camera/video camera/audio recorder) and platforms that allowed one to react in real time (The Book of Face, InstaPic, The Bird/Letter, and now Light Dispersing Atmosphere).
Suddenly, conversations were not necessary. We could see, hear, and most importantly react in real time.
I know what you are thinking: "TB, you are treading close to waters you never engage in." You are right, of course - which is why this post is about none of that.
---
What it is about is the intentional and unintentional definitions of who we are versus who we appear to be in the virtual world.
Back in The Days of Yore, what we most knew about people was that which we knew about those closest to us and the usually limited and controlled information we learned about others. Public images - even if not real and highly protected - were considered important. One could argue that the idea of the "celebrity endorsement" found its roots in the idea that the celebrity was who they appeared to be through the media.
Now, of course, that buffer does not exist. We are treated to scads of individuals essentially "in the raw".
---
As I have publicly stated more than once here, I have begun a retreat from social media which was originally rather slow but has picked up steam of recent months, which in turn has prompted a re-examination of the what and where I look at other things online. There is more than one reason for this of course, but at least one of them beyond just simply having my "feed' filled with negativity and anger is how people are coming to define themselves by what the post and what they are angry about.
I have seen it in my own circles, where posts for or against this or that have come to be the majority, if not the dominant majority, of what people post and write on. Places that are opinion free are becoming as rare as hen's teeth. More and more, people's public personas are now defined by the modern and the current.
So much so, in some cases, that it becomes hard to see beyond that.
(As a side note - and likely worthy of a second post - I will note that a great many people seem against a great many things these days; I see very few that are taking action to help address a problem that they see. Another output of the technology/reaction culture is that it is easier to have an opinion - which is the click of a button - than it is to solve a need. Especially one that will be done in the small secret places, a thing our modern attention culture is very much against.)
---
One of the commands that we as Christians have - and here, obviously, I am speaking to Christians - is that we are to reflect the nature of our Master. We are imperfect of course and forever falling short of His perfect love and obedience, but the command inherent in our calling ourselves His is that we do the best we can.
When what we post about is more rage and anger and distrust and disbelief, we become less and less credible witnesses.
In a way, it is as prosaic as a business: 50% of any business' potential customer base will not believe what the company might believe. If the company exists to make money - which in theory is the point of most companies - they will wisely minimize anything that would cause that 50% who is likely to disagree with "X" to actually give thought to what that company believes. In other words, wise businesses do everything in their power to not give potential customers a reason to say "no".
As is true for companies, so it is true for individuals. And especially true for Christians.
---
There is a story told about a 19th Century preacher - I believe Charles Spurgeon - who had a fellow pastor come to him. The pastor, who had recently published a prominent Christian work on Christ, was angry at a letter penned by a critic in a newspaper. He in turn had written a response and had brought it to his friend for review.
Spurgeon (or whomever) reviewed the letter. "You are completely justified in your criticism; in fact, I see several places where you could write more. There is only one problem with the letter. You have only signed it with your name. You need to add "Your name, author of Work about Christ's love".
The first pastor looked at Spurgeon and quietly left. The letter was never published.
---
At some point, "current modern event" will have passed into history. What will be left are not only those public personas - those pictures, those comments, those quotes, those articles - that exist to show the world "who we are".
Christ cannot make a written Gospel a lived Gospel, as He has ascended. That task is for us who remain here. And the question I now ask myself whenever I "like" or approve something or comment on anything is simply "How will this seem years from now when I am talking to someone I need to reach?"
We like to speak as Christians of how Christ's will is to become our own. Yet too often I find that I will drop His Cross for my own thoughts, desires, and opinions. That is not an option that is really given to us; ours is to carry it daily, not lay it down for the moment, no matter how justified it seems.
Well now TB, this post is too calm, too reflective, too measured, too thoughtful. Yet just perhaps what is needed to be read, less of "ME ME" and more of He.
ReplyDeleteNylon12, that is a right good saying, and I may steal it.
DeleteAt some point a great many people are going to have to walk back a great many things. Even myself, from things long ago.
I tend to ask myself, what am I hoping to accomplish with my response? Often times that leads me to delete half of what I've written if not more.
ReplyDeleteEd, that is precisely the question I am asking more and more: "What do I hope to accomplish?" If a different perspective or correcting an error is the goal, starting out with deliberately setting people off is probably not the way to do it.
DeleteIt is odd that people often assume that silence on a subject indicates agreement with the speaker. Just as often people may not believe them same; they are either too polite to engage or simply do not want the hassle of an argument.
Wise words. Wise indeed. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sandi. If they are wise, they are certainly something I need to practice more frequently.
DeleteLiving life like you propose is what Leta Fay taught me in English. Tighten it up. Lose the being verbs and use action verbs. Make sure the paragraph stays true to it's subject line. Cut the fluff, tighten it up. Like a monkey fist knot, work it till it's compact and tight.
ReplyDeleteA wise pastor told me once upon a time, if anyone comes to him with a great idea for him to do, he would say, "God made that clear to you. I think He is calling you to do it." I loved that. And I took it, too. If I see a need, I figure God is calling me to meet it. And if I can, I will. And I will encourage you to do the same.
STxAR - "God made that clear to you. I think He is calling you to do it." That is a great way to look at things. Sometimes we are the only ones that see that particular thing that needs to be done - no surprise, we are all unique.
Delete'What defines us?' is an excellent question. I'm guessing most people rarely think about it, they just follow the current social trends. But it's an important question, as your example of anger culture points out.
ReplyDeleteLeigh, I suspect most people do not. I do not even think of it as much as maybe I should. But I am trying to be better.
DeleteI will say that not being involved in the Age of Rage has left me with a sense of peace so many others seem to lack.