A Deo Lumen

Updated 7/17/08 for better organization/readability and detail on sources and concluding implications.

WHY THIS MATTERS. The present war of ideas underlying the global jihad against the West relates to all of us, and therefore we must take it very seriously.  This is the point I attempted to make in my first post in this series of thoughts. As we get closer to the November Presidential vote, it is even more important to think through this conflict.

Having had several discussions on this subject with friends and associates, I am encouraged to see that many people genuinely understand that this really is a conflict about ideas.  But most don’t seem clear enough on the underlying ideas to have a well-informed view on how American officials and citizens should best to respond.

This is an important discussion with multi-generational implications.  In this and subsequent posts, I want to try to get inside the logic of some underlying ideas that are driving this conflict, and then suggest some direction for further study and discussion.

No one should doubt that we are in a true war about certain conflicting ideas.  This was expressed so clearly and destructively on 9/11.  Islamic radicals attacked us for many reasons.  I surely don’t know them all.  But from my study, I believe it is accurate to say that this global jihad stems from a global vision of personal and societal life rooted in certain ideas about man, God, and government.

I’ll explore the global vision in the next post.  For now, I’d like to first look at the idea of global jihad.

WHAT IDEAS ARE DRIVING GLOBAL JIHAD? From what I understand, the common idea of jihad by most Muslims is about personal self-purification to the will of Allah through obedience to the Koran, chiefly expressed through practicing the five pillars of Islam.

Radical Islam*, or Islamism, says jihad goes beyond this.  Jihad is still the submission of the will to Allah.  But if people do not submit by personal choice, then it must occur through forced subjection or by the death of unbelievers (infidels), even on a global scale.

In this vision, Allah is not pleased when Muslims allow infidels, expressed chiefly in Western politics and economics, to flourish in the earth.  The West’s flourishing, in fact, is a form of judgment against Islam, and a call for a radical response if the course of things is to be reversed and Allah’s blessing to be regained.

This is the basic justification for a broader purification–a global jihad–to take place.  The argument gains significant force when one lacks productive direction in a nation with many job options for expressing one’s God-given talents.  A charismatic leader blaming the West on one’s plight may be enough to win over enough eager converts to a radical view and martyrdom.

9/11, in this view, is an offering to Allah by those faithful to this vision.  It is a prayer for blessing and a step of purification.  By remove more infidels like me and you from the earth, the hope is that Allah will mercifully grant that the global Islamist vision can be increasingly established on the earth.

TAKING A STEP BACK. There is an expansive, diabolical logic to all this, if you know what I mean.  Consider the dangerous position of becoming convinced that one’s only meaningful options for a productive life are between 1) eternal security through martyrdom; or 2) ongoing earthly conflict towards the establishment of the global vision.

When the facts suggest that only a desperate hope exists for the global vision of Islam to be implemented in the earth, what would you choose?  I would probably opt for martyrdom.  Eternity is a long time.

I also don’t want to oversimplify the choice one might face when presented with the claims of Islamism.  I am certainly not endorsing suicidal terrorism.  My goal is to take one step back to gain needed perspective, so that we can move forward toward a more humble consideration of the subject, particularly for effective communication with our fellow citizens and others who are Muslim.  Before making any arguments against global jihad, I think it is important to understand in at least some small way the kinds of choices one would face if one does not believe there are other real options.

While we take for granted that there are almost always many options in any choice we have in America, if we want to engage the war of ideas from a citizen level, I suggest we should first become effective at what I call “contextual dexterity.”  This is a self-discipline enabling one to see a situation from multiple assumptions and perspectives, in order to make a proper determination on how to act in a complex situation.

INSIGHTS & IMPLICATIONS. This all points us back to the importance of the individual conscience.  Freedom of dissent and religious choice are not operating values throughout much of the Muslim world, as best I can tell.  This means the individual conscience is suppressed, making it hard to see what we see so clearly–that suicide bombings like 9/11 are absolutely wrong.

What do you think?

I’d like to know whether most Muslims agree with the radical vision. I have not heard that many Muslims in America denouncing that vision in favor of pluralistic, religious freedom in a liberal democracy. I wonder if that is because many moderate Muslims have not been given the outlet to speak on this, or if they are afraid for their lives to speak out, or if they really agree with the radical vision–though perhaps disagreeing with terrorism as the right path to get there.

For American citizens, I think it is critical to know where leading Muslim citizens in America stand in this war of ideas.  If anyone can point out any good resources, I’d appreciate it.  With an understanding of the primary groups and their perspectives on the present war of ideas, I think we stand a much better chance of driving towards a fruitful outcome.

I believe it will take a combined top-down and bottom-up approach if we hope for the most enduring resolutions in this war of ideas.  People like us have as much stake in the outcome as any government leader, and our Muslim friends who can turn the tide are normal people like us.  Policy changes will not solve a war of ideas.  The consciences of all stakeholders need to be much more awake to the choices and implications before us.  From there we can chart a more productive course than the current ideological back-and-forth that seems to be driving the present war of ideas.

We all need to get this right.

—–

What is your job description? Check out this one, from a speech entitled “Winning the War of Ideas,” given this week by James Glassman, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs:

The under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs has a big portfolio. One part of the portfolio is to be, in the words of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who introduced me at my  confirmation hearing, “the supreme allied commander in the war of ideas.” I will be concentrating on just that — the war of ideas — because I believe the war of ideas needs urgent attention.

As I have said here before, winning the war of ideas is not the sole domain of a policy official, especially not when it relates to a clash of civilizations and worldviews that affects all our citizens at the most fundamental level.

The “war of ideas” is not first and foremost about what governments do, but about personally wrestling with transcendent questions like:

• Who am I?
• Does my life matter? Does anything in life matter?
• Was I created by a Supreme Being?
• Did I arrive here solely by chance and naturally-explainable evolutionary processes?
• Where should I find meaning and identity among others? How are people to conduct their affairs in society?
• On what basis does any idea derive legitimacy?
• On what basis does any system human government derive its authority?
• Is there an afterlife? How does my life here impact the hereafter?

These questions relate to all of us.  No elected official should be considered to hold “supreme command” of the critical engagement that must occur between peoples of all societies and worldviews.

I am grateful that our leaders in Washington are formally recognizing what should have been pursued vigorously and without abatement following 9/11: broad, strategic communication about the conflicting ideas underlying this conflict.

It is a tricky matter for the President of a representative government to call out the fundamental values of radical Islam.  It begs the question–what does America believe that is so much different or better?

That question runs the risk of offending large voting blocs, for it reveals the broad disagreement among American citizens about fundamental questions like those listed above.  Why would a politician or political party in the business of winning elections risk taking a strong stand, and potentially alienating certain constituencies?

Enter low approval numbers.  Leadership is needed from the true locus of authority in our system–the consent of the governed.  Global jihad has been undertaken against the citizens of the West, particularly Americans.  It is no proper response to entrust the ideological engagement only to elected officials, who are so limited within the bureaucracies they lead.

Sitting idly by is certainly no proper response if you believe, as I do, that more deadly attacks are being planned against civilian targets on American soil.  It is an especially weak response when we have the truth and love of the gospel of Christ to bring to bear.

While there are countless challenges in determining proper tactics in any citizen-driven engagement like this, the tools of new media give us a chance to have this discussion in a candid way.  Tragically, I don’t see enough of this dialogue taking place across partisan, religious, and ethnic lines.  The discussion itself could have a strong unifying effect across these lines, could it not?

The opportunity to engage this conflict as a more unified nation seems a million miles from realization.  Will it take another 9/11?  Whatever the catalyst, I see no way for the “war of ideas” to be engaged to a positive outcome without citizens like us playing a prominent role.  I welcome other points of view on this.  Should I just shut up about it altogether?

As it stands, I see it as a matter of privilege and duty to take this conflict very seriously.  According to my conscience, this involves carefully studying the issues, writing & talking about them, making informed votes, and looking for opportunities to shore up areas of national weakness, particularly in my work.

(Please study Steve Flynn’s works to see how much more we can do as citizens and workers to help prevent more attacks and to improve our national resiliency following any new attacks).

In this post and those that follow, I make no appeal other than that you remember the price paid for our freedoms, and with that in mind, carefully consider whether you should make it a priority to engage this war of ideas in some meaningful way.

Your conscience will help guide you into what that should look like for you.

From Thomas Sowell:

Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court — justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.

Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.

In a year when dissatisfaction has been expressed by both Democrats and Republicans with the presidential candidates chosen by their own parties, it is worth keeping in mind the high stakes involved in judicial appointments — and therefore in presidential elections.

This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.

I agree.  I have heard many on talk radio and have spoken directly with several conservatives who find voting for McCain to be a violation of conscience, because he is not conservative enough for them.  Much has been said on the subject of McCain’s conservative credentials, but I wonder if our fellow citizens are really being consistent in this matter and thinking through the multi-generational aspects of their vote, in terms of the Supreme Court.

Sowell’s conclusion cuts to the chase:

When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next four years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation.

Obama’s consistent adherence to abortion, even post-birth abortions, should be considered very carefully by anyone holding to the pro-life position on the basis of conscience, while also rejecting McCain based on conscience. And in a pluralistic society such as ours, what is the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate but a matter of conscience?

My hope and prayer in this election process is that there will be a recovery of conscience. Is not the individual conscience one of the foundation stones for our inestimable nation? Consider these foundational words in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The present chapter in the ongoing debate on abortion is so critical, because it reflects a fundamental divide on what citizens today believe is self-evident. This divide runs right through the Supreme Court and the present Presidential candidates.  It is a divide of conscience, and it will take an honest, humble assessment of this divide by each of us if there is to be a recovery of conscience.

An election like this one is a great opportunity for faithful Christians to lead the way in this, by first asking ourselves whether we really know why we believe what we believe, and secondly, whether we can defend our views beyond saying “because the Bible says so” but instead making effective moral and practical appeals to persuade the consciences of our fellow citizens who do not share our starting point, the authority of Scripture.

I would argue that the moral, intellectual, economic, and political health of our nation is tied to the inclination, ability, and commitment of Christians to bring the truth and love of Christ into the public square on matters like these.

For only the gospel of Jesus Christ solves man’s greatest problem, and in so doing it establishes the only sure foundation for decisively addressing our secondary, but nonetheless important, problems today.

How do you define it? Peter Beinart of the Council on Foreign Relations offers multiple contexts, as defined by the left and right in America and expressed in the two Presidential campaigns concisely in this quote:

What both campaigns understand is that American patriotism wears two faces: a patriotism of affirmation, which appeals more to conservatives, and a patriotism of dissent, particularly cherished by liberals. Both brands are precious, and both are dangerous. And in this campaign, the candidate who embodies the best of both will probably win.

I plan on reviewing this article more carefully, and then doing my best to explore its root ideas in future posts. I’d like to invite some friends into the conversation. I am confident that the analytical concept I call Contextual Dexterity can be of great help here in looking at both perspectives independently, and then discussing what each view has to teach the other on a range of issues.

I am starting to sense that this election represents a sort of American adolescence, or perhaps a coming of age, and I am thankfully sobered to be alive at this consequential time.

UPDATE: Some humorous but insightful evidence supporting my last point.

There is resistance to the gospel that naturally arises anytime a Christian calls a non-Christian to faith and repentance in Christ.  There is also a resistance when a non-Christian feels like a Christian is giving them a sales pitch, rather than being a true friend to them.

These two kinds of resistance are not the same.  The first is inevitable, because the gospel is an offensive message that calls all people everywhere to see their sins before God and repent through faith in Christ.  The second is largely avoidable, and through effectiveness at work, we can gain the kind of credibility that makes a person want to hear our sales pitch–the hard facts of the gospel.

I work in sales, and I know that if you bring real value to a conversation–from real experience in the trenches–people will hear your pitch.  Indeed, recent studies on branding (WSJ subscription required) suggest today’s audiences are not as skeptical as we think.  People really want answers to their problems.

Our culture trains us to be cool and act as if we have the answers already–who wants to be seen as weak?–but deep down we all know we need God to make sense of our lives.  One can choose to say life does not make sense, but then one is left with no sense of meaning or significance–and all are made for meaning and significance.

Having the gospel at the center of one’s approach allows for a great variety of style and strategy in the use of blogs and other online media to complement one’s activities in the marketplace.  The richness of life in Christ, and its relationship to our effectiveness at work, provides the Christian with meaning and significance.  In Christ, we get to play a meaningful part in something greater than oneself–something of such significance that it will take the Savior Himself to explain it fully to us.  But we experience that significance now.

This points to the unity and diversity that are reconciled in the gospel.  There is unity because the underlying realities of the gospel are objective–they originate outside of us, in the very person of God.  There is also diversity, because each Christian has a rich well of experience of walking with God to reveal to others.

New media provides a way to describe that experience, and connect it to the problems we face through our work.  One such problem is the common tension people face between personal and professional life.  The gospel brings harmony to one’s own day-to-day life in these areas, and this is unique for each person.  This is a rich area of discussion and description for the believer using new media.

Another rich area of material is to contrast how one’s former sinful lifestyle has been put behind oneself through the disciplined application of Scripture.  This has many implications for work. Yet another area is to describe how one’s experience of service within a local church community provides one with a deep sense of significance and meaning in this complex world.

There are many areas of discussion and thought to be explored through new media by Christians across the marketplace.  I believe the primary responsibility to pursue this falls upon us as lay believers, and not upon pastors.  For my part, I hope this series of posts can spark more thought and discussion among pastors and members–online and offline–on how best to leverage new media for the Christian message.

I do pray that more pastors will consider the strategic opportunity of providing focused training to Church members.  This is to ensure that Scripture is rightly applied in this project.  Yet, I think it would be a mistake to view this as a one-way pastoral initiative.  They have been serving us sacrificially through prayer, the study of the Word of God, and Christian discipleship.  Time for us to step up and take hold of our unique role in the Great Commission.

Now, with the advent of new media, many more voices can seize the opportunity before us to proclaim and demonstrate to a watching world that the gospel of Christ is man’s only hope for reconciliation to His Maker.  And in solving the Great Problem of sin, wrath, and judgment, the gospel creates the one sure foundation for addressing all the lesser–but very important–problems all of us face in this world.

Our work creates a unique opportunity to decisively address these secondary problems with the grace of God.  Indeed, it is our calling to do so.  As do so we can, with humility and faith.  With the gospel as our defining reality, our fruitfulness at work can provide a compelling and enduring platform to describe to others just how the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and reign of Christ have made such success at work possible–and to help them see how to take hold of this grace and apply it in their own lives.

Much more could be said on new media presence and the local church.  Thanks to Jacob Vanhorn, whose questions kicked off this series of posts.  I hope it proves to be a good catalyst for more discussion.  I in no way can claim to have mastered any of these truths, so please test all I have said against Scripture and your own experience.  I am in the trenches on this, just like anyone else, aiming to bring eternal realities into my practical experience as best I can, for the service of others and the glory of God.  Thanks for joining me.

I bet that right now, there are many proven executives and marketplace leaders across the body of Christ who could gain a large new media audience in short order.  Could pastors do more to encourage them to do this?  I wonder if just a nudge in the right direction wouldn’t make a big difference.

From my experience, pastors are constantly wrestling with how to “do evangelism” in their churches.  I see a compelling opportunity in training members to carefully consider how the Lord wants to use their positions of influence in the marketplace to more fully magnify Christ.

There are countless ways that this could happen.  I am grateful for the efforts of groups like MarketplaceOne, Strategic Christian Services, Workforce Ministries, and the new Marketplace Ambassadors program in my own church.  I know there are many other such groups.  I have found no group that I can see is the best example.  I think we are in the early stages of this growing area of emphasis.  I hope every church will see this as an area of ministry worth considering.

Gospel-centered marketplace training recognizes there should be something substantively different about a Christian in the workplace. One example of the gospel’s impact on the Christian’s life and work is harmony between our personal and professional lives.  When we allow the gospel of Christ to define all our thought and action, we come to experience the deep, God-intended harmony between these often rivaling areas which always want more of our time.  It takes time.  But this subjective experience points to the objective fact of Christ’s reign over all our lives.  Christ Sovereignly puts the pieces together to make Himself known through us.  This is true of all believers, and it should sober us and spur more faithful obedience.

What person in the marketplace does not want to make a lasting difference for good in this world, and to do so with a clear harmony between their personal and professional lives?  In the Christian message, we have an answer for this.  When the gospel is at the center of one’s life, one can work knowing that Christ is eager to bless our work with fruit as we work (Galatians 6:7-9).

The Risen Christ not only governs all our lives, but all of life.  So the big problems across companies and industries need the wisdom of Scipture rightly applied, if they are going to be solved decisively.  Much of the best of Western history reflects this.

New media has given us an opportunity for compelling thought leadership in the marketplace.  As we learn to translate the wisdom of God from Scripture into practical solutions in the workplace, we will be earning a greater platform of credibility from which to connect that practical solution back to the Big Solution–God reconciling sinners to Himself through Christ.

In this way, blogs and other forms of new media complement a proven example of success at work.  In this way, they allow us to “go offline” and bring others into our lives outside the busy swirl of the workday.  In this environment, it is more appropriate and perhaps even more persuasive to describe how we are submitting the problems we are facing at work to Christ and His Word each day.  As He blesses our work, it will validate what we are saying online.

There are many ways to approach this, as many ways as there are people.  But I believe this kind of show-and-tell may be one of the best opportunities afforded by new media, or more specifically, by blogging.  This will take real wisdom and courage, and for Americans who have been given freedom of speech as a national heritage, moving forward in this way shows honor and thanks to those who paid in blood for our freedoms.

There are many facets to the gospel.  Fundamentally, though, John Stott describes it as divine love conquering divine justice through divine self-sacrifice.  God–who is too holy to have a relationship with us because of our sinful rejection of Him–freely chose to send His own Son to pay for our sins against Him, to give sinners like me and you a way to be reconciled to Him as our Father.  The Cross of Jesus Christ is where God the Father poured out His wrath against sin, directing it against the person on Jesus Christ.  Jesus took this wrath “for the joy that was set before Him,” which includes the redemption of a people who would trust in Christ and be adopted into God’s family forever.

These truths and their implications provide the greatest source of wisdom for solving the problems we face at work each day.  This is our God-given heritage.  It is revealed exclusively in Scripture.  It would be poor stewardship to think it applies only to “personal” areas of faith and practice.  These truths apply to all of life and all areas of the marketplace.

This is #4 in my response to Jacob Vanhorn’s outstanding questions on new media presence (see first, second, and third posts).  It is humbling and sobering to address these questions.  I don’t presume any special insights, but would ask anyone reading any of these thoughts to test them against the wisdom of others, bring them to God in prayer, and ultimately evaluate them against Scripture.

Today I’d like to address one of new media’s key characteristics, transparency.  I believe this presents one of our greatest opportunities to be marketplace ambassadors.  One-way marketing communication is in decline overall, and online especially.  Political candidates such as Trent Lott and media leaders such as Dan Rather have learned the hard way–there is a lot of fact checking that goes on via new media that never took place with one-way mass media.

This brings us to an important point on the inherent authority and broad applicability of Scripture:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.  –Hebrews 4:12-12

Transparency is a gift that God’s Word uniquely gives.  We can discern motives and intentions with it.  Humility demands that this discernment start with ourselves.  This is personal and corporate.  Matthew 7:1-6 is a well-known passage teaching us to take the log out of our own eye before getting the sawdust out of another’s.  1 Peter 4:17 teaches that judgment begins with the household of God.

If we want legitimate, credible, longstanding presence in new media, my question for my fellow Christians and our leaders in churches is this: Is our work and cultural engagement primarily about service others first and foremost, or are we more focused on seeing society reflect our political preferences?

It is easy for those in public positions to make success in this life the priority.  I can only imagine the temptation that may be.  Nonetheless, shouldn’t the Christians preoccupation not be mainly on this life, but on eternal life in Christ, which covers both this life and the one to come.

The path of humility says that whenever Christians argue that Scripture is our Maker’s definitive standard of authority for all mankind, our lives should not be full of compromise.  Yet, the divorce rate in the church is hardly different from that outside the church.  That undercuts any ability to point to the authority of Scripture or the powerful grace of God at work through it.

New media provides the humble, credible voice with an opportunity to explain how the Bible clarifies one’s own thoughts and motivations first and foremost, before saying word one about others.   One the best examples of this that I have seen is John Piper, who explicitly makes Christian communication a two-way street in his Ask Pastor John new media effort.

Yet another aspect of humble transparency is simply allowing an audience time to reflect, ask questions, and even raise the hard questions about the church (e.g., the history of denominational divisions in the church, the use of the pulpit to endorse slavery in America, the Crusades, and other such compromises).  This should be an expectation.  These are real questions that deserve thoughtful, transparent responses.

All defensiveness should be put aside as we make our defense of the faith.  Whether a person takes hold of God’s grace is between them and God.  If they do not agree with our truth claims, we should never stop loving or serving them as we would want to be.  That is where presence can add a lot.  Christians should “set our affections on others” as Christ has done with us, never neglecting to provide the wisdom and care of Christ to them where they need it.

As I have said many times, I see in the future a generation of Christians trained in local churches to serve as society’s best problem solvers, with the skillful application of God’s Word in the language of our own areas of the marketplace.  God’s wisdom translates into every language, tribe, tongue, organization, and industry.  And through real relationships built by time and trust, we can use the credibility gained through problems solved for the gospel.

New media gives a broader groups of voices the ability to leverage this credibility to explain to people the facts of the gospel. But the hard work of developing the credibility and the trust comes first.  This makes the local church and its equipping function (per Ephesians 4) central to this future.

Transparency by Christians and churches is a key factor in this vision.  Transparency includes a willingness to have a truly two-way conversation, always being willing to be evaluated against the same holy standard by which we are calling others to measure themselves.  This is an aspect of credibility that must also be earned, on top of whatever one achieves in the marketplace to get a voice for oneself.

In short, presence is a good goal that Christians of all generations should pursue.  Like all other good goals, it must first be subject to Christ and His gospel, then we can pursue it for both present eternal rewards.

Warren Buffet is no cheap date.  With a bid of $2,110,100, Zhao Danyang of the Hong Kong-based Pureheart China Growth Investment Fund won an eBay auction to have a 3 hour lunch with Buffet, the renowned investor and current world’s richest man.

Actually, for 3 hours with Buffet—and a potential longer term relationship—that’s probably not a bad investment.

In my first and second posts on new media presence, I was responding to Jacob Vanhorn’s questions at a pretty basic level.  Now I’d like to focus the idea of leadership training, which he called out specifically.

I advocate a strong emphasis on training not only pastors, but also members who are called to the marketplace.  I don’t suspect that in a public forum like new media that many non-Christians will care too much to hear from pastors.  Nothing against pastors.  We all need to hear from those uniquely called of God to minister His Word and serve the church.

But I would wager that the average member of a church has far more personal interaction with non-Christians than a pastor.  So, if online presence is about engaging other perspectives with the Christian message, then I advocate a strong emphasis on training the average member of a church to think critically and Biblically–with the gospel of Christ shown to be at the center of God’s plan in the world–and to pursue excellence in one’s work.

In short, I advocate training marketplace ambassadors to be skillful in using the wisdom of God’s Word to address real problems in society through their work.  This involves a life of study similar to what we see in pastors, though with a broader focus on issues of one’s professional calling.

Churches need not be experts in engineering to train engineers, as long as pastors make it clear that God’s Word provides foundational concepts to all engineering.  God upholds the universe by the Word of His power, says the writer of Hebrews.  What a feat of engineering that the diversity of the universe is so unified in design as to be upheld by a word.

Following Ephesians 4, I believe pastors should see new media presence outside of Christendom as largely the province of the members of their churches.  This is not a dogmatic position.  There will be times when a church is providing a service to the community and using new media to talk about that, but when it comes to weighing in on the matters of concern to us all, most non-Christian audiences are going to look to their peers in the marketplace before they look to pastors for wisdom.

That’s why I’d like to see the pursuit of presence originate from multiple, credible voices across churches, ethnicities, and geographies.  This entails a long-term, two-way approach.  Christians have God’s authoritative self-revelation to mankind, the greatest resource on earth.  When Christians and churches give in to a secular/sacred division of truth–as if the wisdom of the living God can only be confined to our personal and church lives–we fail to serve our neighbors.

I see no reason why every Christian called out into the marketplace cannot be trained within local churches how to pursue deep knowledge and proven expertise in addressing the challenges of our time.  By doing this in a patient, interactive way in connection with others of all views in our places of work, and in the marketplace in general, we will have a much more stable platform for bringing the timeless Christian message.

I recognize that this approach may be swimming against the current tide of Christianity, but I see a great opportunity ahead of pastors consider making a high priority of training members to bring theologically sound and self-sacrificial leadership to the marketplace.  This is a wise way to pursue presence, as I see it.

We are continuing our exploration of pastor Jacob Vanhorn’s great questions on new media and the idea of “presence.”   I’d like to isolate one-way vs. two-way communication approaches to gain presence.  New media is all about two-way, though a remnant of one-way still holds sway in many circles, especially those where marketing budgets are highest.

The one-way approach focuses on preparing a well-crafted image, for example, of a political candidate, and then having your people stay “on message” to drive that image home in the minds of the electorate through every available medium.  The goal here is to systematically build your candidate’s image in the audiences’ minds with carefully crafted content.

Does anyone disagree that that approach is in the decline online, especially among younger audiences?  What frequent new media consumer hasn’t acquired a strong “BS meter” that flips on whenever a message is presented to “sell” the audience an image?  This doesn’t mean there aren’t strong one-way messaging campaigns–Apple Computer comes to mind–but using a one-way approach to online communication is like pushing a string.  Most online consumers I know are too discerning to have presence forced upon them.

There are no shortcuts to presence.  Sometimes I wonder if Christians think that special rules apply to them in the marketplace of ideas, as if we are entitled to one-way communication when presenting our concepts.

If anything, the standard for Christians should be harder and higher, for we are the ones arguing that the Bible’s claims apply to all people, not just to believers.  While I am certain this is true, that doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate angle to take into the new media marketplace.

I believe that a strong starting point in bringing the Christians message through new media is credibility.  If one does not bring substance to the public conversation, one should expect little presence.  This is a basic principle of public communication.   Credibility based on some success or meaningful service of others earns a communicator some presence–at least for a little while.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike when it comes to the new media audience.

Jacob asked how far is too far.  Well, pursuing too much new media presence directly with the Christian message is risky, because there are offensive aspects of the Christian message.  That’s why my last post on this topic focused on building relationships of trust and respect before bringing the hard truths of sin, wrath, judgment, and penal substitution.  This is why real local churches engaging real communities and real hardships with the truth and love of Christ can never be replaced by any new media activity alone, though new media is a great complement to extend the influence of these activities.

So, to the Christian or church who wants to step out into the public square, I ask whether the first thought is to focus what matters to our audience, or on what we want to communicate?  If we want to serve others with the love and truth of Christ, we will put the interest of the audience first.  If we genuinely view others as equals and want genuine two-way communication, we will have plenty of room to pursue “presence.”

Alternatively, Christians can stay in the online echo chamber and talk about the shortcomings of other worldviews, or of the imminent doom of the advance of “the left” in America.  There are countless sites that do that.  Some of these sites are not political in nature, but focused on preserving morality in society, and as such can be very helpful for education, fellowship, and encouragement.

But in terms of the presence Jacob and other church leaders may be seeking for cultural engagement, it seems very one-way to me when Christians primarily want to talk about things that matters to them, rather than focusing first on the interests of others, even those who directly and explicitly oppose the Christian message.  Of course, when a preacher is sharing the gospel, that is inherently one-way.  But online media is different, and it should be approached with plans to leverage it on its own terms, as a distinctly interactive environment.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, I see plenty of opportunity for innovative, two-way communication with those of all perspectives.  I am eager to see a new generation of leaders seize this opportunity, even if it means running into the headwinds of the status quo.