Recently I saw an online article by a pastoral colleague who loudly complained of the mistreatment he had received on the Internet and social media for some of his views on certain topics. At one point he stated that while he still believed in the Adventist message, he was genuinely getting “tired of Adventists.”
The problem this brother seems to be experiencing, like so many others I have encountered in recent years, is the temptation to equate the toxic clamor of Internet and social media sites with the larger public, whether inside or outside Christian or Seventh-day Adventist circles. As this colleague of mine frankly acknowledged in the aforementioned article, this isn’t just a problem among Seventh-day Adventists, among professed Christians, or among adherents to any number of ideologies in the secular or religious realms. But such a reaction as his helps illustrate the extent to which the online universe can define and even eclipse genuine reality.
“The Echo of a London Coffee House”
Jonathan Swift, in seventeenth-century England, spoke once of how “it is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom” [1]. Today, it appears, many make the mistake of confusing the echo of online chat sites with either the opinions or the spirit of the majority who adhere to one or another religious or philosophical system.
Making assumptions like these can be as dangerous as the thinking of an old family friend who visited my home a number of years ago, who was trying to convince my father of the truthfulness of certain New World Order conspiracy theories. My father kept asking the man, “How do you know this?” His repetitive response was, “Oh, I read it.” One quickly wondered if the man simply assumed that because something was in print somewhere, it had to be correct.
There are those today who seem to think that merely because a certain tone is prevalent on a given website forum or someone’s Facebook page, that one can justifiably conclude that this tone represents the idea or thought system espoused by those who leave posts in these settings. But for a variety of reasons, such notions can be seriously misleading.
An Unreal World
One individual whom I have come to trust shared with me some time ago some research conducted by certain ones regarding those who regularly post on a particular website forum, whose content is frequently critical of fundamental Adventist doctrinal and moral standards. It was pointed out that of the twenty-five or thirty most frequent participants on the forum in question, most do not identify themselves and many are no longer members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Anonymity is an easy mask to hide behind in such a setting, often causing civility and grace to be compromised in the exchange of ideas and opinions. (This is the primary reason, it should be noted, why the administrators of the present website do not allow anonymity on our discussion forum.) Such concealment goes far toward discrediting the persons who thus hide themselves, as none can be sure whether they are real or simply masked pranksters out to defame ideas they don’t in fact espouse and wish instead to defame. Some who choose anonymity will insist that they dare not reveal who they are in these discussions, for various professional and reputational reasons. We won’t argue, in the present context, as to whether such a course is or is not befitting of one who bears the name of the Lord. But the notion that such veiled identities can be assumed to represent one or another belief system, or that the church’s (or some other entity’s) policies should be adjusted or articulated so as to reflect or confront what is stated in such a context, is—for a cluster of credible reasons—highly questionable.
What is especially alarming is the ability of the online world to enable certain ones to inhabit a reality of their own making, where actual facts no longer matter and people freely pick and choose the information they prefer to accept. The fictive reality of what some have called “alternative facts” becomes dominant, even if objective evidence is lacking. Crowd sizes, election outcomes, needful measures to confront a pandemic, obvious damage to nature and the environment by human choices—all can be more easily denied because of the online echo chamber one chooses to occupy, and from which all uncomfortable challenges are conveniently excluded.
Another major problem with giving prominence to opinions expressed within the online bubble is the inescapable fact that many among the few who dominate such sites give evidence of possessing an unusual amount of discretionary time. Being the moderator of such a forum myself, it would perhaps be foolish of me to suggest that time committed to such conversations is wasted. But the vast majority of people holding to one or another philosophical or religious thought system simply don’t have the volume of time that denizens of the Internet and social media seem to have on their hands. This fact should go far in dissuading people like my pastoral colleague from assuming that “online Adventists”—whatever their ideological stripe—necessarily speak for Adventism, or that they warrant a declaration so sweeping as to say one has become “tired of Adventists.”
Conclusion
What is stated here is not intended to imply that the online universe lacks usefulness in the work of sharing God’s end-time message with a dying world. Like all other media outlets and communication devices, the Internet and social media can be employed for good or for evil. Years ago I remember an evangelist who spoke of the dangers of television, yet at the same time clarified that just as getting rid of one’s TV set might be the best course for those unable to control it, the same should be done with a telephone if it is used for gossiping!
But while admonishing fellow believers who post online to conduct themselves like true Christians is certainly appropriate, the present cacophony of online voices should never be allowed by the thoughtful believer to define the spirit or mindset of those for whom such voices presume to speak. Criticism from persons in such settings, like all criticism, can evoke an awareness of how one is coming across and perhaps lead to self-corrective measures on one or another’s part. But it is neither wise nor factual to presume that the tone in such settings necessarily represents the spiritual, theological, or philosophical viewpoint such persons purport to share. The great majority of persons with convictions of any kind possess neither the social daring nor the discretionary time so obviously available to so many who inhabit the online world.
REFERENCES
1. Jonathan Swift, quoted by Rick Perlstein, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001), p. vii.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan