Blogs, Notes, and Forums...the dumbing down of an already stupid generation?

Sometimes I wonder whether it is wise or not to read some of the posts my former students have left in various places. Whether on Facebook notes, personal blogs, or forums, the younger generations are flocking to sites where people will listen to what they have to say. In fact, I am doing the same thing as I type! And yet, does this personal expression actually do anything productive or useful for them, those they debate or discuss with and culture in general? From what I have seen and read thus far, my answer would have to be "NO."

Let me start by saying I do not believe these medias are bad at all. In fact, I believe these "journal-like" avenues of communication allow people to better express themselves and communicate with each other. What I am conflicted over, however, is the content of these communications.

I am a presuppositionalist when it comes to logic. I enjoy evidential reasoning from time to time, but if you can cut to the chase and deal with the root of the issue philosophically, it saves a lot of time and energy. The main problem is, that many people do not know what they believe or why they believe it so they end up with a hodge-podge of mixed presuppositions that contradict each other. Unfortunately, these folks rant and rave about a great many things without ever stopping to smell the roots of their worldview. As a result, they just sound stupid.

Case in point: I was perusing some notes on Facebook written by former Christian school graduates who are now in college and think they understand debate and philosophy. One of them posted about their problem with a God who judges people unfairly, condemns them to hell unrighteously, and then points to open-mindedness as a potential solution. Shortly after this post, along comes our Christian evidentialist, who does the old 1...2...3...4 throw Bible verses and argue point-by-point over the sub-issues instead of getting to the heart of the matter. From then on, for about 5 days, canned arguments, dated back to high school days, with a bonus helping of ad hominem and a dose of Wikipedia links.

My stomach sank as a read on and I left not feeling as though I had read a good paper between two intelligent men, but rather a laughable attempt at playing grown-up by six or seven fools who all think they are right. The saddest bit to me is that several of the posters were fence-sitters, who randomly threw in Amens! when they were not even sure where they stood.

If I was in a less critical mood at the moment, I might have some constructive plan to help such people. Unfortunately, I just feel irritated and depressed, which is sad because I would rather be laughing at the antics of Miss Teen Usa South Carolina-esque people. Instead, I am saddened because I know them personally and I fear for where their logic leads!

Wait...strike that...I suppose I have already suggested an answer. These young men and women simply need to learn to deal with the issues that govern their logic then they might get somewhere. The only other problem is getting people to see this...

**If you have some time to peruse a blog a friend sent me on this similar wavelength, feel free to check this out: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google **

"Another John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?"

In Romeo and Juliet, we see Juliet tell her lover that a name is, by itself, a meaningless thing. A rose would still be a rose and smell like a rose even if it had a different name. While it is true that the essence of a thing is not defined solely by its name, I would argue a name often carries part of the identity of a particular thing.

In fact, names are so important they have been central to epic tales throughout history. In both of the Neverending Story movies, correctly naming a specific person or thing meant life or death for the entire world. Bastion, the boy who reads the story and is inevitably sucked in, must come to grips with what something is in its essence and then attach the proper name.

Madeleine L'Engle, in A Wind in the Door, makes an interesting connection between love and being. As the story progresses, Meg encounters three men claiming to be the school's principal. It is up to her to name the correct one "Mr. Jenkins" or tragedy will strike. As she struggles to decipher which of the three is the real Mr. Jenkins, she learns that in order to really name someone, you must first love them. Meg, therefore, has to put herself in Mr. Jenkins' shoes and empathize with him to correctly identify which one he is.

Later in the story, it is revealed the Echthroi are unnamers, and are trying to destroy the world by "Xing" beings. Essentially, these creatures cause you to lose your essence, your very being. As a result, you are forgotten not only cerebrally, but are removed from existence as if you had never been there in the first place.

While I would hesitate to say that names = being, I do believe names are an essential part of understanding who we are. I have heard the argument that names are just the label we wear. If you peel off the label and put a new one on, what is on the inside has not changed. I disagree with this. Our name is tied to who we are...if I pull the label off a bottle of water, residue is still left behind. People may not be able to identify what the original label said, but that does not change the fact the water bottle has been impacted by the residue left from the label.

Many people love The Princess Bride. It is famous for the clever writing and it is often quoted today in pop culture. Perhaps the most famous quote throughout the movie comes from the beloved Spaniard, Inigo Montoya: "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"

It is necessary at the end of the movie, when he finally takes his vengeance, that he includes his name. It is part of who he is, where he came from, and why he is in the belly of an enemy castle fighting a man with six fingers to the death. Things would not be the same if he triumphantly declared, "Hello. My name is unimportant and irrelevant to who I am. But you did kill my father, so prepare to die!"

Scripture teaches us just how important names are. Every name has meaning in the Bible. While a person's name is not always tied to who they become, we often see this being the case. Ehud, Gideon, and Cushan-Rishathaim are just a few examples from the Book of Judges; look up the names and see how the meaning ties to their lives.

The best example of this, however, is found in Exodus when God reveals to Moses who He is. He uses the expression, "I AM," to describe Himself. Here, God's name is integrally tied to who He is. By using "I AM," or Yahweh, God is saying He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is the one true God, infinite, omnipotent and omnipresent. There is no other like Him. All of these descriptions and more are tied to just those two little words.

I believe the modern American mindset has lost some of the value when it comes to understanding the power of names. And yet, even the one who changes their name wants to have the perfect name. The one who goes by a childhood nickname is endeared by it. The one who plays role-playing games will spend time thinking of the perfect name for their barbarian wizard. Companies and even churches will spend hundreds or thousands of dollars finding the name providing them with the ideal image.

My hope is that we would all have a strong sense of who we are. The fight for truth is an ongoing struggle in this world. Many would have us believe that identity is what you make it. That truth is what you define it to be. This goes against the very foundation of what Scripture teaches. Words have meaning; names have significance. This means that we have significance. God planned that I am me and that you are you. What makes us unique (some would say I am special, not unique) is that we are different in our being, and our names are a part of this identity.

There may be another John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt in the world. People may always shout when both of them go out. But in private or one on one conversations, the two Johns are different people and who they are is inexorably tied to the names they go by.

"I am a C...I am a CH...I am NOT a CHRISTIAN!"

Christ-follower. Jesus is my homeboy. I don't believe in religion but in relationship. I have faith, not religion. Follower of YHWH. I don't know. Some sort of Theist.

These are just a few of the labels I have seen self-proclaimed Christians give themselves (yes, even "I don't know). There is such a stigma towards the word "Christian" these days that many are unwilling to associate themselves with the title. There are a few reasons this has become the norm.

Due to the negative press Christians often give themselves, some who want to save face, represent God well, or avoid being stereotyped will label themselves as Christians without using the specific term. Because the world tends to see believers as hypocritical, right-wing fanatics, NRA spokesmen, narcissists, who push their system of unprovable faith on others. As one of my dear friends has mockingly sung, "It's all about me, Jesus" instead of "It's all about you, Jesus."

The emergent church movement has really capitalized on the tactic of changing labels. If we can better reach people and avoid looking like the stereotype, then call yourself whatever you need to in order to get the message across. In their view, if I say I am a fallen truth seeker radically changed by the one who saves instead of "I am a Christian," I will have a more profound impact on those around me.

Those who hold to a more postmodern paradigm also tend to avoid being labeled as a Christian. Because Christianity stands for moral absolutes, believing in the divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God, and clinging to miracles and prophecies, those who hold to a liberal and/or historically critical approach sometimes use other labels to avoid being thrown in with the mix. The main problem this group has is that they are really operating from a different worldview, often believing things or not believing things that destroy the integrity of Christian doctrine. Without the inspired Word of God, the entire religion would be absolutely pointless. Instead of dealing with these contradictions, however, many just stick a different label on themselves and make due with patchwork religion.

Others have a big problem with organized religion. Either through study, where they have seen organized religion cause major problems (Crusades, Witch-trials, etc.) or negative personal experience in a church, Christian school or at home, some have decided to retain what they see as the heart of Christianity without being associated with the organization of the system. I have seen many who, if you pressed them, would sound like Christians with their beliefs, but label themselves as seekers of love or truth. Less radical people will just drop the organization all together, but sill refer to themselves as Christ-followers, etc. because they have relationship but do not want a religion.

Still others are not really Christians at all but for some reason they still identify with Christianity enough to keep a spiritual label of some sort. I see this a lot with applications like Facebook and MySpace. The walk and the talk in no way matches their "follower of Christ" or other labels, but they cannot fully let go of the Christian faith. To be fair, I am sure there are many who would fit this description who truly are believers, but their lives are not in accordance with their beliefs. And, as harsh as it may sound, some will label themselves differently so they can feel more free to live the way they want. A Christian should not be a drunkard, but if I am simply a lover of Jesus, he'll take me no matter what flaws I have.

I believe there is another group who has not really thought about this topic at all, and many of the Christians in this category just like to be called anything that shows they are a Christian. To these, Christ-follower, seeker of the Truth, Christian, and lover of Jesus are the same thing. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, of course, but in a world where words convey meaning, people have to be careful about what they say. Telling a random person on the street you are a Christian will almost certainly carry different stigmas than claiming to be a seeker of Truth or saying Jesus is your homeboy.

The bottom line is that while there are a variety of different terms and phrases one can use to be associated with the Christian faith, one should be careful when deciding what to use. The word Christian, for example, is not a bad word. It may carry negativity for some, but it carries hope for others. The etymology of Christian is not Christ-follower, as many believe, but literally means "anointed one" or "Messiah." In Acts 11:26; 26:28 and I Peter 4:16, the word does describe disciples of Jesus Christ, but when you call yourself a Christian you are really saying Christ is the Messiah. Christ is the way, the truth, the life. I am a follower of the one who was prophesied and promised in Genesis 3:15.

It is not bad to use some of the other labels for Christianity out there, but if a Christian wants a label that says it all, that relays truth, depth, relationship and hope, then he or she should proudly bear the name of Christian and be willing to tell others about what it means. It is an amazing thing that the word Christian is, in itself, a Gospel presentation. If you can explain what it really means to those around you, then you are really telling the story of Christ and what he did.