Is Facebook evil? Everything bad about Facebook is bad for the same reason — Quartz
\nWithout question, Facebook enables brutal and immoral hatemongers. I can hear Facebook arguing that they cannot possibly take a stand on moral issues without becoming censors and losing objectivity. Facebook cannot make those decisions without messing up a lot of the time. I agree. Its scale is just too massive.
\nThat’s just the thing: Facebook can’t admit it, but it’s possible that the most moral thing is for Facebook not to exist.
\n", "date_published": "2018-08-03T17:29:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2018/08/03/is-facebook-evil-everything-bad.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith","Society","Tech","Ethics"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2018/03/24/oscar-romero-may.html", "title": "Oscar Romero, May 11, 1973", "content_html": "Even when they call us mad,\nwhen they call us subversives and communists\nand all the epithets they put on us,\nwe know that we only preach the subversive witness of the Beatitudes,\nwhich have turned everything upside down\nto proclaim blessed the poor,\nblessed the thirsting for justice,\nblessed the suffering.\n\n", "date_published": "2018-03-24T21:45:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2018/03/24/oscar-romero-may.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith","Society"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2018/03/01/pastor-lura-n-groen-spiritual.html", "title": "Pastor Lura N. Groen: Spiritual Abuse at the Meeting at ULS regarding Dr Latini", "content_html": "
I understand Dr. Latini’s desire to control her own story and her own identity. And yet she has applied and accepted a position as a public face of a religious institution before being able to talk about parts of her religious life that were very public. Public theologians, and public representatives of institutions, need to be able to take responsibility for their public record, and to explain previous writings and actions.\nContext here.\n
I agree with Lura. There is a crucially important distinction between personal repentance and redemption and public accountability.
\nI expect more from the president and board of my alma mater or any institution.
\n", "date_published": "2018-03-01T21:10:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2018/03/01/pastor-lura-n-groen-spiritual.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith","Society","Ethics"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2018/02/16/safety.html", "title": "Safety", "content_html": "Sen. Marco Rubio, in 2014, in a bid to raise his NRA rating from a B+ to an A:
The safety of our families is not something people should hope government can provide.\nMartin Luther and the Reformers, in 1530, in the Augsburg Confession:\n
[Government defends] not minds, but bodies and bodily things against manifest injuries, and restrain[s] men with the sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve civil justice and peace.\nI’d wager more Americans would agree with the 500 year old statement than with Sen. Rubio’s.\n", "date_published": "2018-02-16T18:23:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2018/02/16/safety.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith","Society"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2018/02/09/explicit-bias.html", "title": "Explicit Bias", "content_html": "
If your skin is white, like mine, I urge you to take the online Implicit Bias test conducted by Harvard University. They have several, but I’m specifically talking about the White-Black bias test.
\nYou won’t like the results. Most of us white folk put a lot of energy into appearing to be unbiased based on race. Most of us get very defensive if called a racist. I admit to having a certain amount of ill-founded pride in being ‘very tolerant’ towards race — so I was very disappointed to find the test revealed that I had a certain amount of implicit bias. In other words, I automatically have a stronger positive feeling towards people of lighter skin than darker skin.
\nMy first response (which is typical for people taking the test) was to blame the test. After all, I think racism is evil, and all prejudice based on skin color is wrong, and even dumb. But what the test measures is our ‘gut response,’ formed before the thinking part of the brain kicks in. Just take it and you’ll see what I mean.
\nNow that I’ve calmed down, I know it’s true. My experiences, conversations, media, and curricula have taught me to see dark skin in a more negative way. Think of a Disney villain…I’ll bet they have darker skin than the Hero. How many Bad Guys can you think of that have dark skin? How many mugshots have you seen on the news of folks with dark skin? I didn’t ask for this. But I am responsible for my response. These experiences form my automatic bias, and if I pass them on uncritically…well, I’m not one of the Good Guys.
\nI’m not a Bad Guy for having implicit bias, but my responsibility is to stop uncritically accepting the ways that my bias gets passed on or tolerated. I have to start with myself, so I’ve developed a list of ‘explicit biases’ that I want to train myself in. Just as our negative implicit biases take a while to learn, so will my correction to them.
\nWhen I encounter a person that is culturally, socially, economically distant from me, I run through a list. I affirm in my head that this person:
\nI think there’s a difference between taking comfort in my beliefs and taking comfort in my own understanding of my beliefs.
\nFor example, if it comforts you that God is in control of the world – that’s fine. If it comforts you that you understand exactly who God is condemning – that’s troubling.
\n", "date_published": "2017-11-29T01:00:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2017/11/29/comfort-in-beliefs.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2016/09/22/a-communion-parable.html", "title": "A Communion Parable", "content_html": "There once was a man who had a neighbor. The neighbor invited him to a great party. Food was shared. Everyone cared for each other and the man went home happy. He was surprised that the next week, his neighbor invited him over for another great party. He attended again and loved it again. The third week in a row, the neighbor invited the man to the party and the man became suspicious. “How can he afford to throw so many parties? Perhaps he is trying to trick us into doing something. I’ll not go. Besides, I’m tired of parties.”
\nBut the man noticed that week after week, the neighbor continued to throw parties for whoever came. Often there were people there he did not recognize. Week after week, the neighbor invited him to parties. The man pitied his neighbor and started calling him names behind his back.
\nThen one day, the man took sick, lost his job, and could not afford to buy himself food. When his neighbor invited him to the party, he thought to himself, “what choice do I have? Besides, I want to see whether the parties are any good anymore.” When the man joined the party he found food and neighbors caring for each other just as he did at the first party. Tears filled his eyes as he realized he had been wrong about the neighbor.
\nWithout anything to contribute, the man asked his neighbor how he could help. “You can’t,” he said, but instead gave him all the leftovers from the meal. “It’s too much,” said the man. The neighbor simply said, “Then, that’s how you can help.”
\n", "date_published": "2016-09-22T00:00:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2016/09/22/a-communion-parable.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2014/10/01/multitasking-considered-harmful.html", "title": "Multitasking Considered Harmful", "content_html": "Clay Shirkey banned laptops in class even though he is a proponent of technology. But distraction is like secondhand smoke: it hurts us and the group. Our basic urges follow distraction down rabbit holes before we even have time to stop it. He now seems himself working together with students against these tendencies by banning devices.
\nAttention is precious in our faith. The church should also work together, when appropriate, to limit distraction without demonizing technology.
\n", "date_published": "2014-10-01T00:00:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2014/10/01/multitasking-considered-harmful.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith","Tech"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2013/05/01/prayer-for-depth.html", "title": "Prayer for Depth", "content_html": "My mom recently told me that when I was born, she sincerely prayed for me to have to particular qualities that would help me in my life.
\nIt’s funny because when my son was born, I also felt a deep desire to pray for something in particular for Henry. It’s hard to want something for someone who will have to eventually become his own person. I agree with Merlin Mann that the absolute best you can do for your child is allow them to be messed up in their own way. So I worry: if I pray for Henry to be calm, is it just because I don’t like noise? If I pray for him to be artistic, am I already trying to live vicariously through him?
\nSo here’s my prayer as I hold him in the hospital. I want him to know depth. I believe the world and every part of it is deep. I want him to just know that whatever he stands on, there are tectonic layers and plates stretching through time and space and all resting on a molten core that infinitely provides energy for everything he does.
\nAs much as I can avoid passing along fears, inadequacies, and all sorts of shortcomings, I want him to know that deep down, underneath his own quirks, that he is not alone. That there is a richness to the soil he is planted in and to never stop drawing from it.
\n", "date_published": "2013-05-01T00:00:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2013/05/01/prayer-for-depth.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith","Me"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2010/09/16/baptism-and-the-cross.html", "title": "Baptism and the Cross", "content_html": "This essay was written for a class I took in seminary called\n“Interseminary Seminar” in which students from the local Lutheran,\nCatholic, and Baptist seminary each presented an essay exploring the\ntheme of baptism from their own faith tradition.
\nBroadly, theology of the cross in the Heidelberg Disputation deals with\nthe issue of revelation. How is God known? Luther’s ‘new theology’ is\npartly born out of his response to those church teachings which he saw\nas seeking the ‘invisible things of God’ through philosophy. But as\nLuther objects, God is never revealed through the works of man, and\nbecause of sin, God cannot be known fully known through creation. The\nMona Lisa is beautiful, and the Grand Canyon is awe-inspiring,\nbut they cannot reveal the true nature of God to humans. Rather, God is\nrevealed as God chooses: indirectly, though suffering and weakness and\nby faith. A theology of the cross assumes Jesus on the cross is the\ndefinitive revelation of God to humanity. Luther’s contribution in the\nHeidelberg Disputation is insisting on limiting God’s revelation to\nGod’s terms. Theology of the cross, then, seeks God where God is to be\nfound – in Christ, for whoever has seen Christ has seen\nGod.2
\nIt is impossible to systematically define this theology of the cross.\nIndeed, Luther spoke initially of what a theologian of the\ncross does rather than what a theology of the cross\nis. Even more challenging is that Luther describes this ‘new\ntheology’ in the form of opposites. The most basic definition of this\ntheology of the cross is that it is the opposite of a theology of\nglory.3\nThe dichotomy is set between a theologian of the cross, and a theologian\nof glory. What, then, does a theologian of glory do?
\nThesis 21 of the Heidelberg Disputation states, “A theologian of glory\ncalls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing\nwhat it actually is.”4\nA theologian of glory is attracted to those things which appear\ngood: good works, glory, elegant ideas, strong positions. But this is\ncontrary to Christ’s revelation on the cross which comes through\nvictimization, suffering, foolishness, and weakness. Apart from Christ,\none naturally prefers “works to suffering, glow to the cross, strength\nto weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil.”5\nThe forces of the world run on power, after all; might makes right.\nRight? But to not know Christ, who comes in weakness and suffering, is\nto not know God. A theologian of the cross affirms that God “can be\nfound only in suffering and the cross.”6\nGod can only be found in the last place anyone would look: in\nweakness, in a victim. In a crib, on a cross.7\nIndeed, theology of the cross operates in opposites. For Luther,\n‘calling a thing what it is’ meant facing the question of a terrible,\npunishing God and trusting in faith while professing hope. For the\nmodern theologian, it might mean facing the question of a non-existent\nGod and professing that same hope.8\nIt should be made clear that while these two types of theologians are\nmutually exclusive, any individual is always both. A roster of pastors\nor a faculty of professors cannot be simply labeled either a theologian\nof the cross or a theologian of glory. Just as Lutherans affirm\n“Simultaneously Saint and Sinner” they would affirm “Simultaneously\nTheologian of the Cross and Theologian of Glory.”
\nA theology of glory arises, says Luther, any time humanity presumes to\nknow God on human terms. The effect of sin (defined not simply as moral\nindiscretions but humanity’s enmity with God) is such that humanity is\nunable to grasp that which is God’s. Any attempt, then, to grasp God\nthrough human effort is a theology of glory. Theologies of glory are so\ndangerous, and thus so strongly rejected, because they lead to faith in\nthe theology, rather than faith in God:
\nWhat is revealed is precisely that we don’t know God. Our problem is not\nthat we lay claim to such little knowledge of God but that we think we\nknow so much. […] God refuses to be known according to the schemes of a\ntheology of glory.9\n\nIt may seem that theology of the cross rules out good works. In fact,\nLutherans would say that good works are done by God through the Spirit\nmore and more in the life of the baptized. But the work done is always\nGod’s alone, and not to be confused with its source. The greatest\ntemptation for the theologian of glory is to do good works or think good\nthoughts and put trust in them. Thus the Heidelberg Disputation:\n“Although the works of man always seem attractive and good, they are\nnevertheless likely to be\nmortal10\nsins,” and “[a]lthough the works of God always seem unattractive and\nappear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.”11\nIt is a difficult pill to swallow for theologians (ancient and modern)\nto confess that the very best human achievements are ‘filthy rags,’ and\nwithout merit. But those things or works which appear most good are most\nlikely to produce trust in the thing done, rather than God who\naccomplished it. On the contrary, the works of God appear as weakness\nand folly. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are\nperishing. Because the world did not know God though wisdom, God saves\nthrough the foolishness of those who\nbelieve.12\n
The Lutheran perspective is careful to say first that baptism belongs to\nGod. Although the rite is performed by a human, baptism ‘is nevertheless\ntruly God’s own act.’13\nBaptism is done by God and to achieve God’s purpose: to save. Through\nthe lens of ‘assignment,’ baptism has been described as God claiming\nheirs: the baptized person does not become Christ’s by “placing himself\nunder Christ, but rather he becomes Christ’s […]” through\nbaptism.14\nThe believer is assigned to Christ.
\nBecoming Christ’s means not just bearing the name of Christ, but bearing\nthe cross. Baptism seals us with the cross for our life in Christ.\nThrough baptism we participate in the cross, that is, in death and\nresurrection. The theme of baptism as participation in Christ’s death\nand resurrection most directly comes from the sixth chapter of Romans.
\nDo you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus\nwere baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by\nbaptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by\nthe glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of\nlife.15\n\nPaul is describing a very real death to be experienced. This particular\ndeath is not an imitation of Christ made possible by baptism, or a\nsymbolic copy of Christ’s death, but an insertion into the “once-for-all\ndeath of Jesus Christ.”16\nIt should also not be completely individualized: Paul is talking about\nthe death of the old “dominion of sin, of which all believers were a\npart.”17\nWhile baptism is indeed a washing and forgiveness of sins as the\nScriptures promise, it is also a real connection to the cross. Baptism\nbrings death to sin, but this event is not different from the saving\nwork of Jesus accomplished on the cross.18\nBaptism looks back to the death of Jesus on the cross, but also forward\nto the resurrection of the body:\n
Even though in this world the baptized is still moving toward his death,\nhe may be certain on the basis of his Baptism that he has already\nexperienced his death, for he has been given into Christ’s death.19\n\nBaptism’s meaning is eschatological in the sense that while the believer\nremains bound to death in earthly life, God has won the last word over\ndeath. This becomes a source of constant hope for the believer, even in\nthe midst of suffering and death.\n
This connection between baptism, dying, and rising also appears in\nColossians 2:11-12: You are co-buried with Christ! In the synoptic\nGospels, as well, Jesus equates baptism with his journey to the cross in\nMark 10:38-39 and Luke 12:50. It is also important to read Paul’s use of\nbaptism in Rom. 6 within a larger context of dying and rising found,\nmost notably, in Galatians and II Corinthians; this context has been\nlacking in much interpretation of Rom. 6.20\nAccordingly, Paul’s discussion of baptism in Romans cannot be considered\na summation of his doctrine of baptism, but it does make clear the\nintimate connection to Christ’s death and resurrection. It bridges the\ngap between between the cross and the life of the believer:
\n[…] not because baptism repeats Christ’s death or enables it to be\npresent in some unique way, but because in baptism the destruction of\nthe old world and founding of the new which the cross brings about\nreaches its goal in the life of the believer.21\n\nTherefore baptism is the present reality of God’s past work in Christ\nand future redemption of the world. The past and future work of God come\ntogether in the believer’s present life. Death and resurrection are a\npresent reality for the baptized.\n
According to Robert Kolb, baptism signifies a ‘rhythm of dying and\nrising.’ Through baptism the Lutheran lenses of Law (which kills) and\nGospel (which makes alive to God) enter daily life:
\nAccording to Luther, God introduced the rhythm of dying under the\naccusation of the law and rising under the power of Christ’s\nresurrection in baptism. That rhythm of life gives believers a new start\neach day, a start from the creative beginning that God gave life in the\nvery beginning, with the creation of the universe, and in the beginning\nof our new life in Christ, whenever his Word in one form or another\nbrought us into his family.25\n\n\n
The rhythm of dying to sin and rising to God takes place each day in the\nlife of the believer. God’s word does more than edify, it kills that\nwhich is false and raises that which is true. The connection between\ndying and rising with Christ and daily life is apparent in Rom. 6. Paul\nmoves immediately from theological concept to its implications for\nethical living.26\nLong after the initial rite of baptism is over, this rhythm of dying and\nrising with Christ continues to bring daily life of service to God and\nneighbor out of the daily putting to death of sin.
\nBaptism cannot be grasped by the wisdom of the world. It is not simply a\npromise of life; It is also a promise of death. What kind of wisdom is\nthat? Baptism proclaims this foolishness, that in participating\nin Christ’s death, one will participate in his resurrection. To take\nthis promise seriously means to be at odds with reason and the human\ninstinct which avoids death at all costs. Put another way, because of\ncaptivity to sin, human nature cannot accept complete dependence on God\nand looks for a way around the cross. It looks for a way around death\nand therefore rejects Christ.
\nParadoxically, death to sin becomes the way in which the power of death\nis defeated. Baptism effects continual death to sin in the life of a\nChristian, and leading him or her to walk in newness of life. Through\nopposites, through weakness, God’s work is done in the baptized. Baptism\nmarks the radical reversal from trusting in good works to regarding them\nas evil. It brings death to all theologies of glory – it brings death to\nthe theologian of glory. By affirming this death as the key to\nnew life, it forces the theologian to ‘call the thing what it actually\nis.’
\nPractically speaking, it can be difficult to hold to this type of\nteaching which proclaims the cross instead of glory. Not only are\nbaptism and the theology of the cross paradoxes, but they point to\nsuffering – not a well-received topic in pubic discourse. A modern day\ntheologian of the cross may well be nicknamed Reverend Killjoy. Luther\nanticipates this complaint in the Heidelberg disputation.29\nThe cross, he says, does not give cause for despair but for “arousing\nthe desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.”30\nThe cross brings death where there is false hope in life – life apart\nfrom God. The cross corrects bad vision by attacking this false hope\nuntil the believer cries out with the Apostle Paul, “who will rescue me\nfrom this body of\ndeath?”31\nThanks be to God that Christ Jesus provides the answer: You must be born\nanew.32\nIn the Gospel of John, Jesus tells Nicodemus of the new birth received\nby faith. But because the inner theologian of glory is never far away,\nas Forde points out, Nicodemus even tries to take baptism (so to speak)\nunder his own control: “Can one enter a second time into the mother’s\nwomb and be born?”33\nNo. Baptism is of the Spirit, of God, and is not within human power.
\nMost baptized Christians will quickly recognize that sin is indeed\npresent after baptism. Sin and baptism are understood together through\nthe theology of the cross. As Luther argued in the Heidelberg\nDisputation, the works of humanity, though seemingly good and\nattractive, are likely to be mortal sins. The sin which remains after\nbaptism ‘makes it impossible for any good works to be pure before\nGod.’34\nBecause sin is ever present, no human work can ever be acceptable to\nGod. Thesis 24 of the Heidelberg Disputation acknowledges this fact –\nthat wisdom and the law are not evil in themselves but in\nhumanity’s misuse of them. Without the theology of the cross, humanity\n“misuses the best in the worst manner.”35\nFinally, the problem is sin. The brokenness of humanity twists every\ngood toward evil. Thus Christians misuse scripture, damage creation, and\nuse God-given gifts to violate others’ human rights. The wisdom of the\nworld is not the problem; it’s the wise.
\nThe pervasive presence of sin doesn’t invalidate baptism, but rather\ndraws the sinner closer to it. For Luther, this means one should boldly\n‘hold fast’ to our baptism and ‘set it high’ against all sins.36\nIn baptism, that sinner finds assurance of a loving God in the midst of\nsin and suffering. Against all questions and doubt, baptism speaks hope.\nThough sinful eyes distort vision until good appears bad and bad appears\ngood, baptism is a true revelation of who God is for the\nbeliever. Baptism saves. Luther would not say the sacrament in and of\nitself saves, but rather God’s work through it. It is strictly the work\nof God revealed through the cross that saves, and not –\nespecially not – any human work, well-intentioned or otherwise.\nIn this, the sinner finds comfort.
\nTheology of the cross is for every baptized person to do, not simply\nprofessional theologians. My purpose in connecting baptism with theology\nof the cross is not to glorify the theology itself. This would\nbe the greatest of sins; a devious attempt to replace faith in God with\nfaith in something else. I hope to have shown that through baptism, God\nraises up theologians of the cross: those who trust in God who\nbrings life from death.
\nCousar, Charles B. A Theology of the Cross: The Death of Jesus in\nthe Pauline Letters. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
\nDunn, James D. G. “Salvation Proclaimed, 6: Romans 6:1-11: Dead and\nAlive.” Expository Times 93, no. 9 (1982): 259–264.
\nForde, Gerhard O. On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on\nLuther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B.\nEerdmans, 1997.
\nKolb, Robert. “Luther on the Theology of the Cross.” Lutheran\nQuarterly 16, no. 1 (2002): 443–466.
\nKolb, Robert, and Charles P. Arand. The Genius of Luther’s Theology:\nA Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church. Grand\nRapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008.
\nKolb, Robert, Timothy J. Wengert, and Charles P. Arand. The Book of\nConcord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.\nMinneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
\nLoewenich, Walther von. Luther’s Theology of the Cross.\nMinneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1976.
\nLuther, Martin. Luther’s Works, Vol. 35. Edited by Jaroslav\nPelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. American edition. Saint Louis: Concordia,\n1986.
\n———. Luther’s Works, Vol. 51. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and\nHelmut T. Lehmann. American edition. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1986.
\n———. Three Treatises. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Fortress\nPress, 1970.
\nLuther, Martin, and Timothy F Lull. Martin Luther’s Basic\nTheological Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
\nPannenberg, Wolfhart. “A Theology of the Cross.” Word &\nWorld 8 (1988): 162–72.
\nRoot, Andrew. “A Theology of the Cross and Ministry in Our Time: How Do\nYou Call a Thing What It Is When You Don’t Know What the Thing Is?.”\nDialog: A Journal of Theology 48, no. 2 (2009): 187–193.
\nSchlink, Edmund. The Doctrine of Baptism. Saint Louis:\nConcordia Pub. House, 1972.
\nTannehill, Robert C. Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in\nPauline Theology. Vol. 32. Beiheft zur zeitschrift für die\nneutestamentliche wissenschaft und die kunde der Älteren kirche. Berlin:\nTöpelmann, 1967.
\nWengert, Timothy J. “Peace, Peace … Cross, Cross: Reflections on how\nMartin Luther Relates the Theology of the Cross to Suffering.”\nTheology Today 59, no. 2 (2002): 190–205.
\nWengert, Timothy J. Martin Luther’s Catechisms: Forming the\nFaith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.
\nLegally we have free speech, but in reality, it’s anything but free. Our\npublic communication is captive to sin and it cannot free itself, even\non the web—which is touted as the most democratic system of\ncommunication invented. But by human nature, our communication always\nbends towards evil.
\nSound dramatic?
\nWhen anonymous feedback is allowed on heavily visited sites, it doesn’t\ntake long for the racism, bigotry and\nHitler references to\nappear—buried just beneath the main article. More subltly: a church’s\ncommitment to articulate a particular moral belief might end up\nalienating those most in need of its support. In other words, we\ninvariably fail to communicate perfectly. The multiplication of tools\nfor communicating online doesn’t reduce the risk, it increases the risk\nthat we fail to live up to our name—at a larger scale. Let’s be honest\nabout this…
\nOur gift, then is editing, moderation, and most importantly:\nforgiveness!
\n", "date_published": "2010-03-13T01:02:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2010/03/13/free-speech-free-will.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2010/03/13/message-and-medium.html", "title": "Message and Medium", "content_html": "We can use the growing resources of electronic communication to bring\nthe gospel message to many who have not heard. But we need to\ninvestigate the message and the medium. Because this isn’t about\nproducing electronic tracts. That would be called spam. This is about\nreal connections that draw us to real relationships that, put\ntogether, represent God’s work in this particular place, in this\nparticular time.
\nWe can’t pretend the Internet doesn’t exist. It does; at least for those\npeople living in developing nations. We also can’t assume that\nChristians have a monopoly on this new medium, as we did with past\ntechnological advances. We don’t. And thank God that Christendom is\nover. But between naiveté and arrogance, Christians are called to engage\nthese new electronic tools and work that they may be used justly and\neffectively.
\nWe may even have something to say about how our new tools should be used\nfor the better. But first we need to learn what it all this means for\ndoing ministry—the same ministry that the church has always done.
\n", "date_published": "2010-03-13T01:01:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2010/03/13/message-and-medium.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith"] }, { "id": "http://kwlblt.micro.blog/2010/03/13/net-full-of-fish.html", "title": "Net Full of Fish", "content_html": "Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach; but the disciples did\nnot know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, “Children, you have no\nfish, have you?” They answered him, “No.” He said to them, “Cast the\nnet to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they\ncast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were\nso many fish.\n\nJohn 21:4-6
\n
Like the Gutenberg revolution, though, the advancement of the Internet\nis not simply by degree over traditional media, but rather by radical\nchange to the way Western society works, plays, and even thinks.
\nStrictly speaking, as a medium, the Internet cannot ensure value. Those\nthings that are most important to us are still contained in the\nmessage—wherever that message may be found. In the quoted verse, the\ndisciples have a net. Sure, it’s not an internet, but I trust you’ll\nforgive the wordplay. The net alone, though, was not enough to catch\nfish. The disciples followed Jesus to fill their net with fish.
\nWhat are we called to do with our Internet?
\nJesus called the disciples in the boat ‘children.’ After reading any\nnumber of anonymous ‘comments’ on a public site like YouTube, you’ll\nprobably agree the label still fits. Like any new technology, the\nInternet has multiplied the ways in which we communicate, but it has by\nno means taught us how to communicate better. As it becomes harder and\nharder for us to avoid the Internet, we are more and more called to work\non communicating authentically in this new medium. We have a lot to\nlearn. Before we cast our new nets to the sea, let’s think about using\nthem responsibly. Let’s listen for direction.
\nAnd then our real work begins.
\n", "date_published": "2010-03-13T01:00:00-04:00", "url": "https://netfull.org/2010/03/13/net-full-of-fish.html", "tags": ["Article","Faith"] } ] }