Memorial

Today marks the 145^th anniversary of one of the most dramatic and tragic events in American history–an event known as Pickett’s Charge. In an age where honor, courage, and duty still meant something, 15,000+ men from the Army of Northern Virginia mostly walked across an half-mile long, open field while being fired upon from three sides in the desperate hope of breaking the Federal line and bringing an end to the War for Southern Independence.

The wave of gray clad soldiers rolled up the hill and crashed through the Union line, only to be swept back by Federal reinforcements. Two-thirds of the Confederate number would not return to the safety of their own lines.

I have visited the battlefield at Gettysburg several times. On one of our family visits there, my two sons decided to play "Pickett’s Charge." One, playing the Yankee, got down behind the famous stone wall. The other, playing the Confederate, got about 50 yards away and charged.  He "died" about six times before he reached the wall to "kill" its Yankee defender. And so the tragedy was played out in a child’s game.

It still astounds me as I remember that vast field those men had to cross on foot on that hot July day while facing the angry blasts of so many guns.  The initial blast from the Federal cannon could be felt in Pittsburgh–over 150 miles away!

May we remember and honor their futile sacrifice in their duty and devotion to God, country, and family.  And may we have similar devotion and courage, if ever a time comes when we are duty bound to serve in such a manner, while leaving in God's sovereign hands the outcome of our efforts and the secure destiny of our souls.

Sheepdogs

A few years ago we were on a family vacation in Virginia. We were traveling off the normal pathways trying to find some obscure battlefield or museum when we came across the National Sheepdog Competition. Well, that looked interesting, so we stopped for a few minutes to watch.

It was fascinating to see that with a single word, sound or whistle; the dog knew exactly what to do. He would, quite literally, run circles around the four sheep under his charge to keep them together. The closer he would move toward the sheep the faster the sheep would move in the opposite direction. And if the dog really wanted the sheep to move quickly, he would run up behind them and nip at their legs. The dog’s methods were very effective in moving the sheep from where they were to where he wanted them to be. The sheep clearly feared and were intimidated by the dog.

What might be a spiritual application here?

Believers are described as sheep in the Bible. And the elders, of which I am one, are said to be shepherds of the flock. We are not called to be sheepdogs. We are called to be shepherds. We are to lead, not press from behind. Gentleness should be our methodology, not intimidation. The sheep knowing that we care and will lay down our lives for them will follow. It may not be quite so effective–some will stray, but Scripturally speaking, that is what we are called to do.

Yes, occasionally we will have to turn to church discipline, but if the elders have created an atmosphere in the church that is one of care and concern for the flock, then the discipline will less likely to be deemed as harsh. I have seen shepherding discipline. I have seen sheepdog discipline. And while the elders may grieve when applying either one, the latter leaves the sheep unloved, unwelcomed and battered. Shepherding discipline should hang out a banner which says, "We love you and we want you back as a repentant sinner." Even without repentence, the best place for the unrepentant sinner is in worship, exposed to the means of grace through the preached word.

May all shepherds renounce sheepdog methods as they tend to their flocks.

"Every successful revolution puts on in time the robe of the tyrant it has deposed." --Barbara Tuchman, historian

Lord Acton put it more concisely, "Power tends to corrupts."

[Note: I edited the above.  My mind kept gnawing at me that Machiavelli did not make that statement, and that was correct.  Lord Acton did.  How could I forget the famous dictum of such a staunch supporter of the Confederacy?]

A Review Article, Part 2

Christians in a .com World by Gene Edward Veith, Jr and Christopher L. Stamper

Crossway Books, 2000

In the last Article, part one dealt with the changing world view that has grown, in part, due to the advent of the Internet. In this second part, the Internet’s effect on communication and relationships will be discussed as well as its impact on the lives and world around us.

Maybe I lived a sheltered life as a teen, but I rarely met any teen outside of my high school in Chattanooga, TN–a city and county that boasted as many high schools as there are here in Greenville, SC today. Bullying and ridicule of others was limited to relatively small enough numbers that the victim could avoid his tormentors most of the time. Of course, growing up in the South mainly kept the ridicule spoken toward those who were not present. Back then, there were few who were callous enough to say something cruel to another’s face.

I remember Ricky. He attended our high school and spent much of his time in special education classes. No one picked on him. The in-crowd mostly did not bother with him. Though he was a gentle and friendly young man, sadly few sought him out for friendship either. I can still mimic his speech as I could back then. But at no time was it ever done in his presence. That act would have been cruel.

My, how times have changed. . . .

2. Communication: Communication on the Internet can take different avenues. It can take the form of a web or blog site on the Internet. These are sites on the Internet where people or entities (businesses, churches ,etc) communicate to a general audience. Yes, a blog (basically, an electronic diary) might be geared to one’s friends, but its stage is public and its intended audience broader and more generic than a private interaction. Or communication may be in the form of email, private or instant messaging (IM), which is more personal, private and interactive. Or further, it may take the form of public interaction in chat rooms and discussion forums where many people may take part in conversation and debate. The authors call these forum discussions an essentially "brand-new form of writing. It is part postcard, part phone call, part debate. Internet posts have the semipermanence and premeditation of writing, yet the immediacy of interpersonal communication" (p60).

But whatever the form takes, they all have similar characteristics due to being communicated through the same medium. The Internet favors short pieces and strong visuals, not development in depth. Debate, in which I have taken part, favors the one who can make his argument with bullet points. The method of communication that is most effective is informal, casual and even slangy. For that reason ideas are seldom explored in detail or depth. Yes, there are those who will read and follow such depth of thought, but there are far more who will pounce on one tiny aspect of your overall piece and concentrate all their energies misinterpreting what you have written, and consequently ignoring and rejecting your whole argument from that single misconception. Because many people do not read carefully, several posts must be used to correct the unnecessary issue created by the initial inaccuracy. And, of course, this situation is further complicated by the "my opinion is just as valid and equal as yours" culture in which we live, never mind the fact that one is a high school kid and the other is a PhD student in theology and the high schooler is trying to teach the PhDer about what the Greek means in verse so-and-so (Can you tell I am a frustrated internet debater? Sigh.).

But all is certainly not bad (or frustrating) for those who communicate online. One must just know its advantages and its limitations. E-mail has ushered back the dying art of letter writing. Yes, it has changed a letter’s form, but a whole new avenue of communication has been reinvigorated without having to wait days for the letter’s arrival (and thus more days for its answer). One does not struggle with poor handwriting (another’s or one’s own), nor does an e-mail intrude upon another’s activities like a phone call would. One may read it or ignore it at one’s leisure.

E-mail has, at least, two common problems. People tend to be too concise–even to the point being curt in their writing. While e-mail is more casual, it is also conversational. If you would not speak to someone that way, do not write to someone that way. Second, and connected to the first, no matter how well one writes, e-mails will come across to the reader much more harshly than intended. Going out of your way to show courtesy and grace will go a long way to prevent your attitude from being misinterpreted [using emoticons–ie smilely faces , might also help]. Additionally, knowing that problem, when you are the reader give grace to the writer. If you are still in doubt, ask the writer if the e-mail was intended as harshly as it might have appeared. It is likely you will get a very surprised response from the writer. It is better to get this issue resolved rather than letting it fester.

Some may try to remain anonymous in their Internet communications with others. To this the authors offer the following words:

While some precautions are needful to protect your children from predators, you can immediately see the problems with the above situation. Anonymity, or the illusion of it, encourages sin by lowering inhibitions because one is no longer accountable for one’s words. Freedom from accountability means freedom from biblical ethics. So, yes, one’s sin nature will be freely expressed–not a good situation even for the most sanctified among us. And a positively scary situation in which to place your children, both from the giving and receiving side of communication. So anonymity and the creating of false identities, even as a joke, is not a recommended circumstance in which to put oneself.

[Note: Some will point out that an anonymity to the world is good because it affords some protection to the vulnerable. That statement is true. However, I am referring to complete anonymity–that anonymity which releases one from accountability. IF the parent is aware and monitors what their teen is doing then a qualified anonymity is perfectly acceptable. In the case of adults, spouses, friends or someone on the Pastoral Staff are acceptable accountability partners.]

But further, something I have told my sons over and over, there is no true privacy on the Internet. Assume everything you write is public for all to see. Anonymity is an illusion. Many have learned this truth the hard way. Most of us have heard of the e-mail where the sender meant to click on "reply" and instead clicked "reply all" and thus sending a private response to a larger audience. That occurrence is not only embarrassing, it can damage relationships. That is not to say, that what you write is or will be public, but the real potential is there.

Recently, I know of private messages that were sent out to 6-8 Internet friends. And as they privately conversed, one of the young men did not contribute to the correspondence. Two weeks passed and as this private conversation continued, things were said that were, shall we say, socially unacceptable and even ungodly (mind you, not all of these young men are professed Christians). Finally, this young man wrote something to the group. Within four hours what he wrote was publicly posted on the Internet. One of the 6-8 Internet "friends" was waiting to smear this young man’s reputation. It did not matter that what the others had written was much worse, or that his words were taken differently than he intended. The other boys’ words were not publicly posted at that time. Only the professed believer’s words were.

What lessons might be learned? If this were a devotion about Psalm 1, it might be not walking in the paths of or with the ungodly. And there are certainly some lessons to be learned here about Internet relationships. But the lesson for the moment is simply: 1. Assume everything you write on the Internet is public; and 2. Anonymity is an illusion. These can be hard lessons to learn. Do not wait to learn them by experience.

Still further, why are teen girls reviving the art of writing a diary on Internet blog sites? Do they think it is proper to publicly list love interests or how they hate certain other specific girls? Do their parents know how their daughters are exposing themselves to the world? Do even Christian girls think it is right to give permanence to gossip by posting it on the Internet? These questions and others, like "Do these girls parents know their daughters are writing these things?" run through my mind when I occasionally come across such web pages on these social sites.

Consider this. Prospective employers are searching the Internet for information concerning job applicants. It does not matter whether it is true or false–remember the Internet does not distinguish between truth and error. What might they be able to find there about you? It does not matter whether it was placed there by you, nor does it matter to the employer whether it is true or false. What will they be able to find there about your child? Thus, it is all the more important for parents to observe their children’s online communications, because their children can too easily, and without thought of the possible long-term consequences, give expression to their youthful foolishness.

[Note: Thankfully, there are apparently a lot of people with my name out there, so it is a challenge to find anything on me. ]

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. . . . Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God. . . ." (1Co 10.23 and 31-32)

3. Relationships: The Internet presents many wonderful opportunities for new and varied relationships. While my group of friends was somewhat limited by my location (East Ridge High School, or later Furman University), today there is no such limitation. Those with physical or other limitations and specialized interests can connect with others all over the world. The Internet links "people together into communities that [have] nothing to do with a sense of place," and "creates a public space where one never existed before" (p49). Prime examples of this phenomenon are Xanga, MySpace, and Facebook.

However, there are attendant dangers too. We have all heard stories of predators stalking the Internet for victims, but there are lesser and more common personal pitfalls as well as a serious cultural issue. One of the issues is that online relationships are formed by the written word, thus different parts of one’s personality are revealed first. Even if one is totally honest in his writing, a picture is created of the person that may not be reality. And if one is not honest, it is much easier to deceive someone online than in person. To illustrate, from your reading of these articles some (many?) of you would never guess that I am, in fact, an extreme introvert.

Some question whether the Internet is "creating a world of loners" (p69), which is ironic considering what is stated above concerning its facilitating the creation of relationships. The point, however, is that the more one is behind a computer screen, the less he is interacting with people face to face. And if the vast majority of one’s interpersonal relations is on the Internet, then one is, in effect, a loner. One may have many online relationships, but have few physical (in the platonic sense) friendships.

[Note: Happily, most of us probably know of online relationships that evolve into real, personal friendships. However, care must be taken in developing such friendships.]

This personal problem begets a societal one. The Internet "will undoubtedly contribute to the fragmentation of our culture, into smaller and smaller interest groups that have less and less in common, and fewer and fewer of the social ties that every nation needs" (p113). Instead of common community or heritage holding us together as a nation, common interest or ideology is becoming the glue of our allegiance. This change cuts a wide swath across our cultural consciousness, but that topic is beyond the scope (and length!) of this article.

The lesser and more common pitfalls mentioned above are better dealt with in the Impact section below. So to that topic we will now turn.

4. Impact: Cyberbullying. It is new term created to describe the expanded vistas made available by the Internet for the local school bullies of yesteryear. With a little creativity and ruthless cruelty (unfortunately, a quality not in short supply today) , a cyberbully can disgrace, and even destroy, another’s reputation, making them an object of ridicule to their peers. And this operation can be carried out in a very short amount of time with the help of the Internet.

Because of the vastly popular social networks, like Facebook, communication spreads much more quickly. This fact can be very good. It can also be very bad. Gossip and ridicule that was once contained in small groups is now spread beyond those that know you (and thus may have some knowledge of the information’s truthfulness) to those whom you have never met. Not only are the words not contained, by not being contained they can not be retrieved either. One’s reputation is permanently smeared. And this fact can have a huge effect on many teenagers, whose hormones are already wrecking havoc on their emotions.

Recently, three different incidents have come to my attention. An article dated 8 December 2007 tells of a 13 year old girl who committed suicide in October 2006 after enduring an online hoax where she was sent messages by fictitious Internet "friends" that encouraged her to die. Those who reportedly carried out that hoax are now the targets of an anonymous online smear campaign against them. Second, Focus on the Family reported in a recent article in their Plugged-In magazine (Nov 2007) that a girl was forced to change schools when an ex-boyfriend claimed on a Facebook page that she had had many sexual partners–and named names. The site had attracted over 100 of her classmates before it was shut down. And while many knew the allegations were false, the lingering embarrassment was too much for her to remain at that school. Closer to home, a Facebook site was setup as a joke for the sole purpose to ridicule someone. It was created and hosted by a fictitious person. Before the site had been shut down almost two weeks later, over two hundred people from at least three different high schools, most of whom did not know the targeted victim, had joined the site. Relationships were damaged that have not been repaired.

Lastly, one area where the desired impact of the Internet is seriously deficient is in the area of worship. Contrary to the propaganda of some TV preachers, there are no electronic churches. We have a command to meet together in worship, where ministry to each other also occurs (Heb 10.24-25). The fulfillment of this command requires real, not virtual, relationships. It requires real human touch, laughter, tears and a real lifting up of our corporate voices in prayer and praise. "The Bible describes the Church as a ‘body,’ not a disembodied spirit" (p159). Thus, while the Internet can certainly broaden a church’s outreach and ministry, it cannot replace the church itself. And though believers can connect with each other from all over the world through the Internet, there is no adequate substitute for the local body of believers.

Conclusion: To some extent the Internet is what you make it. These articles probably appear to be more negative than the book, as the authors legitimately have a much more positive attitude toward the Internet than what I show here. The appearance here was inevitable as I wished to communicate some things that I have learned in the last few years–things that you need to watch for and hopefully avoid.

None of the above stories should be construed as a condemnation against the Internet or Facebook. While the stories above show the explosive power the Internet and social sites can have on young lives, "the problems of cyberspace are those of the human heart, now projected into a global, multi-participatory network" (p173). John Milton "maintained that the solution to the problem raised by the new media [ie the proliferation of products from the printing press] was not censorship but the cultivation of Christian character" (p145). While we may differ with Milton a bit (I doubt he could have imagined the extremes to which we have descended today.), the authors are likely true that, with the current cultural climate, "any restrictions on the Internet will be used to silence" Christians (p145).

The Internet magnifies one’s words because it attracts larger audiences and can do so quickly. The Internet makes everyone a publisher and allows the Christian world view back into the cultural debate. Each and every individual Christian’s voice can be heard around the world. Thus, one’s ministry is thereby magnified as well as another’s sin. "As scholars are showing, language underlies all thought, all culture, and all personal relationships. . . . As long as the Internet is, among other things, a language medium, it can be a forum for God’s Word" (p167).

Samuel Morse’s first message on the telegraph was, "What hath God wrought!" (Translated: "See what God has done!"). Similarly, we should look to see what God can do through the Internet. The Internet is a tool. "The tool’s value depends on what one does with it" (p21). It has vast potential to be used to expand God’s Kingdom. Because "totalitarianism is more difficult now" from governments not being able to easily control the flow of information, the Internet is not limited by man-made borders. But "it is also a tool that can use us" (p24). It, by the very nature of the media, tries to force one into its own mold. It is by knowing the media that one can use it for God’s Kingdom’s growth while recognizing and avoiding the dangers that reside online. For the unsanctified mind, it can be used for great evil.

Parents need to be fully engaged in their teens’ lives. They need to keep track of what their children are doing and what is being done to them on the Internet. And do not be afraid to step in when necessary. These are things we need to know, not just for ourselves, but more importantly for our children.