We have something in common, you and I. You may not realize it yet, and this may come as a bit of a shock, but we're part of the same hate group. We're large, powerful, angry and effective. We have causes - millions of causes - that we’re passionate about, at least for a moment. My causes aren’t the same as your causes. I may even hate your causes, but in our division there is strength. We all hate something, and we’re all taking out that hate in the same place. We are the Internet, and we are a Hate Machine.
Rob Bell and Rebecca Black are two recent examples of Internet Hate Machine carnage. They have nothing substantial in common, other than shared initials and victimhood. Bell is a pseudo-famous Christian pastor, author and speaker, best known for his mega church and Nooma video series. Black is a 13-year-old girl who wasn’t known for anything before unwittingly becoming a viral video star.
Somehow, both managed to get on the wrong side of our angry Machine. It’s not hard to do, because anything can set us off - and just about everything does. We hate Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, homophobes, rich people, poor people, jocks, nerds, celebrities, athletes, musicians, movie directors, journalists, dictators, presidents, Helvetica and Comic Sans.
Rob Bell made the mistake of writing a book with a provocative title: Love Wins. That title, and a short promotional blurb from his publisher, gave some people the impression that Bell might possibly be hinting at the remote chance that he’s considering becoming a Universalist. As a collective, the Internet made up its mind: Rob Bell was no longer a Christian. Another pseudo-famous Christian pastor, John Piper, tweeted our rallying cry: “Farewell, Rob Bell.” We were unified.
Except for those of us who weren’t. Some, myself included, directed our hate towards the haters, judging the judgers. We might be part of the same Machine, but that doesn’t mean we can’t disagree. Which is good, because we always disagree. I fired a sarcastic shot on Twitter:
“Love that Rob Bell is being crucified...over a publisher's synopsis of an unreleased book. Glad Christians never rush to judgment.”
Far be it from me to miss an opportunity to fuel the Hate Machine.
The Rob Bell fervor died down quickly, because that’s how the Machine rolls. Our hate isn’t committed to a cause and it rarely accomplishes anything. It’s about being heard, being first, being important and about being “right." We don't care whether Rob Bell is, in fact, a Universalist. Never mind the facts; only opinions matter - the angrier, the better.
So it was no surprise when, a few weeks later, we turned on Rebecca Black for making the egregious error of recording a silly song with her friends. For a while, we pretended it was the song we hated, sarcastically quoting the lyrics, recording absurd parodies, “ironically” buying it from iTunes. That was just a front. It wasn’t the song that had offended our Machine, it was what the song represented: a rich, spoiled girl whose parents would do anything to make her famous. Aided by our short memories - which conveniently forgot about our own 13-year-old selves, who, like Black, had dreams of fame, who believed we would be rock stars or movie stars, whose parents fed our dreams with karaoke machines and acoustic guitars and home video cameras - we lashed out.
For years, I’ve fumed about the Internet’s celebration of ignorance and unrighteous hate towards anything it disagrees with. Yet I hypocritically engage in it, because I love the attention. My Rob Bell tweet brought me more "publicity" (both positive and negative) than all 900 of my tweets before it. I felt appreciated and clever, and those feelings fueled my addiction to the Hate Machine. I’m not proud of the hypocrisy, but I’m not alone in it.
Christians are as guilty of Internet hate as any other group, and it’s not hard to understand why. It’s an instant way for us to find out who else “gets it” (and, more importantly, who doesn't) and it fosters a powerful bonding experience by creating a common enemy. The immediate validation is an irresistible force.
But it’s time for us to take a new path. Because if we can't engage people with love - even online, even when we're angry and even when we're sure they're wrong - then what are we doing here?
Leave a comment
A login account is required to leave a comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (16)
2. When you read Galatians or Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees, wouldn't you see some "hating" going on? How does that relate to your piece?
3. Are there not significant differences between Rebecca Black and Rob Bell? In my mind the motives for the publicity are quite different between those two individuals.
4. Is it possible to "hate" the theology or ideology of a person without hating the person? It seems that that notion is becoming more and more scare in our cultural "free" market of ideas. It is not possible to write a piece condemning Rob's theology and not loathe him as a person? Seems to me that we need to work hard at promoting that ideal to a much greater measure in our culture. Without it we anesthetize the any real conversation away from having real substance.
This post is directed towards the instantaneous, thoughtless reactions we all-too-often spew online, devoid of any grace. I have read many blog posts that have thoughtfully deconstructed Rob Bell's new book, strongly disagreeing with it, that don't provide fuel for the Hate Machine.
All this to say, I agree. We must maintain our ability to dialogue substantially, while simultaneously being graceful and loving.
Rebecca Black has received death threats and all kinds of bullying language. Many people approach Rob Bell with dismissive name-calling and snap judgments. Appropriate critiques also exist, but there is a lot of outright bile out there, some from self-identified Christians.
(gotta watch our tongues: does it need to be said? am I truthful in my comment? am I the best person to say it? am I saying it in love, respectfully? was the zinger appropriate, or to score snarky points? would I say what I said in person? etc.)
Thanks, Mike---
However, I fear that in many cases, disagreement with an idea or philosophy is equated with disrespect for the individual. There are many examples of such sentiment, much of it aimed at Christians who disagree with someone's or some group's point of view. If we allow such sentiments to muzzle our responses then we trap ourselves in the web of the so-called politically correct nonsense. There are simply some things that we NEED to disagree with, and sometimes do so with forcefullness and even strong sentiment. I believe that we cross the line when we begin to personally attack the individual rather than the idea, philosophy or perceived error. I know that this is sometimes a fine line to walk, and the one whose ideas are questioned is very likely to perceive the words as an attack. But I don't think that the mere possibility of misunderstanding, whether unintentional or cortrived, means that we should never express our disagreement. I believe that a Christian's role of being salt and light sometimes sting and expose, both of which can be uncomfortable to some.
I agree entirely that there are many times when disagreement, even forceful disagreement, is necessary. I read many blogs--Christian and otherwise--that are frequently critical. When criticism is done with grace, truth, forethought and love, it can be a wonderful catalyst for change. However, such inspirational criticism seems the exception, not the rule, even in Christian circles. And constructive intent does not absolve responsibility for the hateful sting of poorly chosen words.
As for your statement about "constructive intent" - I think we frequently fall into the trap of behaving like the world in that we try to be cute or clever rather than thoughtful and compassionate.
Thanks again for a very thought-provoking article.
Great work. Really thought provoking. Thank you.
He writes, "Christlikeness means living by grace and truth, extending both to others. Instead of the world's apathy and tolerance, we offer grace. Instead of the world's relativism and deception, we offer truth. If we minimize grace the world sees no hope for salvation. If we minimize truth, the world sees no need for salvation. To show the world Jesus, we must offer full-orbed, unabridged truth and grace, magnifying both, never downsizing or apologizing for either."
I know the heart of your message resonates within this idea. But why refer to John Piper as a pseudo-famous Christian pastor? Listening to him preach, and reading his books I've always been impressed by his selfless nature. Could one take exception to how he reacted to Rob Bell's video? Possibly. But viewing the video myself and listening to Rob Bell's interview, I find it plausible that John Piper was recommending to his congregation (both local and abroad) to follow Rob Bell's theology with a degree of caution.
Surely people have responded to Rob Bell inappropriately and have failed to honor God with their written and spoken words, but I think it would be a mistake to label Piper in this group. In tweeting, "Farewell Rob Bell" I think Piper was making an important distinction between Bell's theology and his own.
"When criticism is done with grace, truth, forethought and love, it can be a wonderful catalyst for change. However, such inspirational criticism seems the exception, not the rule, even in Christian circles. And constructive intent does not absolve responsibility for the hateful sting of poorly chosen words."
John Piper has done a lot of good, and often does come across as selfless. This post was not a criticism of his ministry or work. And I would have no problem with him "recommending to his congregation to follow Rob Bell's theology with a degree of caution," if that is indeed what he did.
However, tweeting a dismissive-sounding message hardly conveys a graceful, thoughtful, loving "recommendation." The tweet was sent with no context, and was sent into the public arena, where it could only be interpreted on it's own merit. Regardless of John Piper's intent, it DID become the rallying cry of the Rob Bell-hating masses on the Internet.
Also, referring to Piper as a "pseudo-famous Christian pastor" wasn't dismissive of him--that's simply the truth (just like it's true of Rob Bell, who I described in the same way). Both are "famous" in specific circles, and are relatively unknown outside of those circles. Thus, pseudo-famous.
With respect to "Farewell Rob Bell." His tweet was dismissive, but was it inappropriate? To be dismissive is not innately wrong. When I interpret Pipers words I give him the benefit of the doubt. The context I think is clear. Piper is afraid Bell is leading people away from traditional orthodoxy, away from beliefs that are fundamental to Christianity.
I'd agree there are plenty of instances where people are lashing out against Rob Bell in ways that do not reflect God's love. I pray that I do not stray into this arena. I'm also confident that Piper shares these sentiments. The purpose of Pipers tweet was not to belittle or deride Rob Bell. It was to oppose Rob Bell's theology. I disagree with you when referring to Piper's words as poorly chosen.
I know it may sound like I disagree with your article. I really don't. I think it serves as an important reminder that we as Christians should always strive to reflect God's love, especially when reaching out to others who disagree with us.
As for the rest of the hatemongers on the internet, I just don't get it. I don't know if the internet has ushered in indecency or if it simply allows people to show who they really are. Hating people like Rebecca Black and Justin Beiber is childish and only stems from jealousy. The ironic thing to me is that right now the topic of bullying is finally getting its due. So many people are speaking out against it, and yet here we are, subject to more bullying than ever on the internet. And my personal belief, is that as long as websites such as CNN and Foxnews continue to allow comments on their stories they are contributing to internet bullying. Well, that's my little rant. In no way should we hate people, but we must stand up for the truth. As God's children, we would be remiss if we didn't.
Leave a Comment »