Previous Post – Ebook Cover Design Contest

Last week, Rachel Held Evans’ posted a great piece called “The Future of Evangelicalism: A Twenty-Something’s Perspective” in which she makes some observations of what is becoming of the term “evangelicalism” (largely within her US American context).  In response, Carson Clark wrote what calls “A Cordial Response to Rachel Held Evans’ Post ‘The Future of Evangelicalism’”, which offers some rather detailed, friendly & read-worthy push back.  Both posts deserve some time and interaction.

I want to push back a little on one point of Carson’s response to Evans (actually, there are several points, but I will stick to this one for now).  One of his responses to Rachel’s post states:

Perception – It seems that she, like so many writers, doesn’t get that blogs suggest a distorted reality. In many ways, blogs are like political primaries. The radicals come out in force, thus making the whole party look insane. I suspect it’s the same for the Neo-Reformed Movement. The civil, silent majority don’t show up in the traffic stats she referred to.

Carson’s point is worth noting.  It is true that the blogosphere is often overly populated with those who are more concerned with having their voice heard than the quality of what they have to say.  The medium often brings out the fringe (as I prefer not to use “radicals” in such a negative usage), not representing well those whose general “party” they lean towards.  Often, the more balanced, reasonable voices don’t come out (or are as readily heard & highlighted) online.

That being said, I think we should not overlook the title Carson gave this point: Perception.  Carson is right to use that word, because perception is at stake.  While it might not be fair or entirely accurate, it is the perception that is most widely and easily available to the wider population.  The internet is increasingly becoming the most influential communications medium in the world.  Because of that influence, many ideas (and even language) are deeply shaped and changed by the medium (or its impact on the conversations around the ideas).

In other words, regardless of how truly representative the medium is regarding “evangelicalism”, the pervasive nature of the medium and the increasing trust people are placing in it impacts the associations people make with the terms and ideas therein.  Evangelicalism, then, is being increasingly associated with the extremes that Rachel has pointed out.  I think that Rachel would agree with Carson in that it is not fair or right, but the power of perception in the internet age is far more authoritative than we might like.  Like it or not, the perception is changing the wider cultural understanding and assumptions.

I would also argue that, while the voices most commonly heard online are not truly representative of those who identify as evangelical, I am not convinced that the “silent majority” of evangelicals (or Neo-Reformed folks) is as much of a majority as Carson suggests (and neither do I think his examples of “extreme” examples are as extreme as he suggests- i.e. his labeling Mohler as “an extreme fundamentalist”).  Further, the perception dynamic referred to earlier is actually serving as an unintention “recruiter” and “discipler” for many of the increasing number of more strident voices that Rachel cites.  Chicken or the egg aside, the trend is there and it is increasing.

Let me be clear: this dynamic is as readily available to “fundamentalists” as it is to the “progressives”.  My personal convictions, as an evangelical Neo-Anabaptist, is to be more cautious and wary of the Neo-Reformed community- not against, mind you, just cautious and concerned.  However, I see the same risk to those who are closer to my “camp” as well.  Like it or not, this new medium requires intentionality.  Saying it is unhealthy or imbalanced might be true, but it doesn’t change the reality we find ourselves in.

So what can we do to respond?  The impulse for many is to attack or renounce those who represent extremes (on both “sides”).  While there is a place for hard, clear and prophetic renunciations, they should be the rarity, the minority of responses.  Rather, what is need are people willing to intentionally engage in the conversation from a more reasonable place.  Carson argues that many of those very voices are “too busy living their faith to get embroiled in these online brewhahas”.  While there might be an element of truth there, I think that it becomes irresponsible given the powerful, unprecedented nature of the medium.  Some of the very voices who have remained silent could have served the whole Body had they modeled a godly, reasonable response.

Finally, perhaps the biggest thing we can do is to avoid giving attention (& traffic) to those examples of people who are more extreme.  Again, we too often engage in fruitless argument that fuels the fire rather than recognizing that the greater good would be served by not contributing.  This is a clear lesson learned (or one that should be obvious) to those who have critiqued Rob Bell’s book, “Love Wins”.  If their goal was to protect people from false or dangerous teaching, their early and heated responses did the exact opposite, fueling a perfect storm of viral marketing.

The reality is this: as Christians we need to be more diligent in recognizing the significance and importance of “perception” in the new media, as well as intentional and proactive in engaging it meaningfully to counter the imbalances we see.  Perception in this medium goes a long way to both shape our witness to a watching world AND discipling those who are participating in it, often making the perception into reality.

What are your thoughts?