Strong article, good to see you back. Especially the end concerning feeling left behind is powerful.
Another area of application is the question whether Christians should promote their faith on TikTok and other clip-based platforms. Some say it helps reach people and we should not leave these spaces to competing ideologies, but I think the long-term effects of using TikTok are dangerous and we should not compete for the attention of people in the same way as non-Christians do. Yes, a user might feel inspired or convicted for a few seconds, but what is the benefit if he or she just swipes down and sees a cat or fail video?
Really a great read once again, Samuel. Thank you. Gotta love that closing line: "Perhaps the movement leaving us behind is headed to a place we shouldn’t want to go." That sentiment pretty well captures every controversial movement that would lead us towards a place other than where God has told us through His word that He wants us to go. One of those few examples on the Internet where a few well-shaped words lands with the thud of a whole commentary. Nicely done.
However to me these questions alway comes back to the deeper problem of violence and war. Once we concede, as most American Christians do, that violent coercion is justified overseas in times of war, then why shouldn't far lesser forms of coercion be justified domestically in times of peace? (If it's ok to kill 3 civilians to assassinate one terrorist, then why can't I merely take my opponents' words out of context to score political points?). "Politics is war by other means" as the old saying goes.
The simplest solution I see is "some actions are always wrong for a Christian to perform", but that would likely require some version of pacifism or nonviolence, which is fine by me, but I don't imagine many American Christians will ever go that route.
Agreed. This quote has always stuck with me: "I think a bad man is at least as likely to make a good end in the execution shed some weeks after the crime, as in the prison hospital twenty years later." Such an underrated point.
I do wish he would have been around to revisit the topic in the late 1960s or 70s, after Civil Rights, Vietnam, etc, and would be curious to see what (if anything) he'd say differently.
"These questions come from a conviction that the claims of Christ in Scripture are such a nature that one cannot believe and obey them without experiencing some kind of limiting principle on their technology and on their politics...."
Christians on both sides of the political spectrum don't like limits. Still, if we love Jesus we will keep His commands. (John 14:15)
Brilliant, Samuel. Thank you! "Left behind by whom?" is the Christian answer to FOMO. May we all ask it regularly.
Strong article, good to see you back. Especially the end concerning feeling left behind is powerful.
Another area of application is the question whether Christians should promote their faith on TikTok and other clip-based platforms. Some say it helps reach people and we should not leave these spaces to competing ideologies, but I think the long-term effects of using TikTok are dangerous and we should not compete for the attention of people in the same way as non-Christians do. Yes, a user might feel inspired or convicted for a few seconds, but what is the benefit if he or she just swipes down and sees a cat or fail video?
Interestingly enough, Neil Postman criticized Billy Graham for televising revival meetings on the same grounds.
Really a great read once again, Samuel. Thank you. Gotta love that closing line: "Perhaps the movement leaving us behind is headed to a place we shouldn’t want to go." That sentiment pretty well captures every controversial movement that would lead us towards a place other than where God has told us through His word that He wants us to go. One of those few examples on the Internet where a few well-shaped words lands with the thud of a whole commentary. Nicely done.
Great piece.
However to me these questions alway comes back to the deeper problem of violence and war. Once we concede, as most American Christians do, that violent coercion is justified overseas in times of war, then why shouldn't far lesser forms of coercion be justified domestically in times of peace? (If it's ok to kill 3 civilians to assassinate one terrorist, then why can't I merely take my opponents' words out of context to score political points?). "Politics is war by other means" as the old saying goes.
The simplest solution I see is "some actions are always wrong for a Christian to perform", but that would likely require some version of pacifism or nonviolence, which is fine by me, but I don't imagine many American Christians will ever go that route.
Lewis still has, I think, the definitive engagement with pacifism. https://www.42rulesforlife.com/why-i-am-not-a-pacifist/
Agreed. This quote has always stuck with me: "I think a bad man is at least as likely to make a good end in the execution shed some weeks after the crime, as in the prison hospital twenty years later." Such an underrated point.
I do wish he would have been around to revisit the topic in the late 1960s or 70s, after Civil Rights, Vietnam, etc, and would be curious to see what (if anything) he'd say differently.
"These questions come from a conviction that the claims of Christ in Scripture are such a nature that one cannot believe and obey them without experiencing some kind of limiting principle on their technology and on their politics...."
Christians on both sides of the political spectrum don't like limits. Still, if we love Jesus we will keep His commands. (John 14:15)