BlogNashville: Faith-Based Blogging

Shoot, I think faith as a philosophical approach to politics and life is normal. For example, everything I do in terms of my non-profit, and my community services is driven by the fundamental values I have as established by my believe in Christ the Bible, and what I believe is my appropriate response to the world from that perspective.

Evangelicalism is a philosophy that we have, and as such it is going to guide our positions on policital issues, so to me it is impossible in my case to seperate my politics from my faith.

Let me know what you come up with, it will be interesting to see how the audience takes it.

May God direct your efforts, and may you be able to plant a seed in the hearts of the people you come in contact with. And most important of all, may the name of Christ be glorified.

Here are some quick thoughts:

Prepare 2 approaches to the discussion, one if the audience is primarily evangelical Christians, one if not. I don’t know how you would do that w/out alienating people. Maybe ask them why they came to this discussion and hope they’ll talk. They do know it’s a discussion, not a lecture, right?

Depending on group size, you might be able to take a quick show of hands asking about that. (If they are bloggers, they proably won’t mind giving their opinions.)

I’m short on time, so here are some questions:

Will they be bloggers or marketing people?

If they are evangelical Christians:
How do they hope to use the blog?
How can the church use blogs? http://redcouch.typepad.com/weblog/2005/04/interview_brian.html

Also, check out the April 22 entry on LeaveItBehind.com about a church blogging policy.

(Is there a neater way to leave links?)

If they are not evangelical Christians, I’d be interested to know why they are there. Maybe they are looking for guidelines on keeping their content “pure”. Actually, many people might like or need to be educated on how to keep their site pure to their intent.

HTH. God will give you wisdom and words to say. Keep up the good work.

What is a _______ blogger? How do you know they are a _______ blogger? How are _______ bloggers different from other bloggers? If someone wants to be true to _______, what should they avoid or seek in being a _______ blogger?
You can fill in the blank about being a conservative, liberal, Christian, athiest, etc. blogger. In my opinion, which I freely admit can be wrong, a Christian faith based person should be recognizable by their actions. Their brothers and sisters in the faith should be able to recognize the blogger. Those outside of the faith should at least recognize that the person blogging is somehow different and perhaps has some insight or information that the reader would like to know.
If you use those guidelines as the basis of a faith based blogger, then you can blog about any topic, especially involving human interactions, never mention God or your faith, but still be a faith based blogger.
Further, you can know if your blog is a Christian faith based blog by its fruits. Are those reading you, linking to you, commenting on you positively people you would want to know and be known by? Are you as comfortable (metaphorically) with tax collectors, prostitutes and your pastor reading your blog? Are the negative commentors people you would want to pray for or people you would want praying for you? If they are people you would want to pray for, you are probably on track. If the negative commentors are people who you would want praying for you, perhaps you are off track.
Hope this helps.

La Shawn,

How about

“Will faith bloggers break down the stereotypes that exist about people of faith?

“Will faith bloggers contribute to ecumenical understanding? Will it push the ecumenical movement forward? [I read both you and The Anchoress.]

Are there any Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu blogs? Will this increase understanding?

Be prepared for people there to try to paint you as a narrow-minded, poorly educated or uneducated, bigoted ignoramus. The MSM has made it an article of faith that all evangelicals [or almost all] are religious right wing nuts and therefore should be scolded, derided, made fun of, marginalized etc.

This is a good question. I did my best try to answer it here, but I am not sure it is the answer you are seeking. I got carried away. That is why.

I do admit this as one of my faults. Yes. I also talk too much, given the opportunity. However, when I go outside I seem to be all smiles and interested in others! People are pretty cool.

Some good suggestions above. I wonder if you might get some inspiration from Judge Janice Brown’s Red Mass speech the other day. Captain Ed blogged about it today and there’s more at
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-nor.redmass5apr25,0,4757943.story

LaShawn,

The faith/religion of a person has little to do with what I read. For the most part, I look for good and decent and honest people–much as I do irl–to read and “associate” with. The brothers at IraqTheModel are a good example of that, as are you. You don’t push your faith, but I can see from your writing that you have good moral values.

You may want to concentrate on how “bloggers of faith” can be widely read without thumping their books of faith (Koran, Torah, Book of Mormon, Bible, etc.). As someone else commented, actions speak louder than words–who you are speaks more for your faith than the doctrines of your faith.

Am I making sense? Anyhoo, you’ll do fine (g).

GodBlogCon is too exclusive for a liberal to participate in, even a moderate/centrist liberal.

At the risk of sounding exclusivistic, I’m not too sure there is much you can (or should) present to Faith-based bloggers. Is the focus on Blogging in general, or is it on the rules for Blogging. Or then again, is it a presentation on how to be a successful Faith based Blogger?

If it is the latter, why would you want those who hold a view contrary to your to do well? Yes, the blogosphere is a place where all views can gain a voice. But where does it say that you, as an evangelical should help those who deny the essentials of Christianity with that voice.

I realize this sounds incredibly snobbish and elitist, but I got it from my teacher when he said “I am the way, the truth, and the light. And no one comes to the Father but through me.”

If I understand the Bible correctly (an elitist statement in itself), we are told not to help those who would preach/teach something else, to prosper. And in the case, prosper seems to be the ability to get your message out there.

But then again, I run pulpit-pimps.org. So what do you expect me to say?

My two cents on the topic.

Melvin Jones

It seems that the first question that needs to be addressed is: What would be the unique contribution of faith-based blogging to the [any] debate on social and/or cultural issues?

The answer to this question needs to be framed as a persuasive argument for secularists and skeptics, as well as those who are indifferent to the notion of anything based upon religious faith.In other words, its merits must be directed to those outside the faith community.

L — thx for accepting the opportunity to lead.

Faith-based by definition is that which is explicitly shaped by explicit reference to any coherent belief system in which the blogger has confidence. Faith-based by usage is, I think, that which is explicitly shaped by any of the Judeo-Christian belief systems.

Yetanotherjohn makes a great point and uhhh another point. The great point: the faith should be recognizable by actions. The other point: the faith need not explicitly acknowledge God. Both of these suggest great discussion questions. 1. How can a faith-based blog generate not just words but actions? You could throw in what I think is Carla’s notion that to be faith-based means to be devoid of practical application — no action. So to synthesize: What is a faith-based blog supposed to do?
2. And how do/would non-God-explicit faith-based blogs fit into the universe of faith-based blogs? Presumably those would include environmentalists as well as Golden Rule bloggers DavidM references. Glamchild takes this a step further in suggesting that a faith-based blogger could not only not mention God but might not mention even the belief system. So the discussion is: how explicit is a faith-based blog?

My own (former) blog attempted, for the entire 6 months I tried to keep it up, to discuss how to apply Christianity in the workplace. Yours discusses not so much how to apply it to politics as it provides an analysis of politics from a Christ-like perspective. There’s certainly a role for both the applier and the analyst, I’d say.

Given what people have said over and over again, I think the first thing you have to do is determine what you mean by Faith based.

Can an atheist present a faith-based blog? If he or she can then it must be a different kind of faith than one is speaking of when we talk about a person having faith in a supreme being (hack hack) or supreme beings. Faith in one’s self (a secularist) is not exercising the same “kind” of faith as a Christian or as a member of any of the works based religions out there.

Faith implies (typically) trusting something greater than myself, my ideas, or me a a center of the universe.

SO again, I think you have to figure out what you mean by ‘faith-based”.

Melvin

I think Melvin makes a great point. “Faith-based” is in itself often used as a euphemism for “Christian.” If that’s what is meant, why not call it that? If you simply mean “religious” then that is another question. If you simply mean “the author has faith in something” – well that covers just about all of us, Christian, Muslim, atheist, secularist or anything else.

Really, if you are a Christian, everything you do will reflect your faith in Christ, which includes your blogging. How much you overtly express your personal beliefs is a matter of choice. It can range from attempting to hide your view and present complete detached objectivity (impossible) … to mentioning your faith but not making it a focus … to what you do, which is make it an occasional focus and a constant backdrop … to making it the sole focus of your blog.

In taking your approach, you are attracting those who have an interest in what you write, politically or socially, and exposing them to your belief systems. If you take the “this blog is only about my faith” approach, you tend to limit your audience to the choir.

Keep up the good work. Hope all goes well in Nashville.

Eric.

Faith based blogging…hmmmmm

Talking about faith or one’s religion is like trying to define humor. The more you talk about it the less meaning it has. I have never considered myself to be religious but I do think of myself as a man of faith. When it comes to faith based blogging or faith based anything, you just do (or blog) that which is according to your faith and you needn’t always make a “religious” point about it. You just do your best to live your faith. Living (or blogging) your faith needn’t be an outward show of “religion.” It just needs to be “according” to your faith, in this case, Christianity.

I think one of the main offputting aspects of religionists is that they think they have to sound or look “religious” to let people know they are people of “faith.” What a crock! To prove my point all one must do is recall a handfull of televangelists. They’re religious, alright! But appearing religious doesn’t mean diddly.

If I were the devil and I wanted to turn as many people as possible off to Christianity, I would invent the televangelist.

LaShawn, you don’t need me to tell you how to talk about blogging of any kind. You’re going to do fine. Be humble, first of all. Maybe share a bit of your walk with the Lord so as to establish what your definition of faith based blogging is.

Blogging, after all, is really just a giant group of editorial pages written by people who have ideas they want to share with whomever wants to read. No more, no less. Sometimes bloggers tend to get swelled heads due to some of the successes of blogging in exposing injustices in the MSM. In the end, though, we are just pilgrims on a voyage and to not acknowledge your Christian beliefs and just talk generically about “faith-based” blogging would betray who you really are. Just my humble two cents worth.

Anomalocaris…All liberals do not favor abortion nor do they believe that during the entirety of a pregnancy, a woman’s right to “choose” supercedes the rights of the unborn. And all liberals certainly do not support gay marriage. In truth, I do not favor either. These are divisive stereotypes that some political conservative operatives find extremely effective to exploit in growing and solidifying their voter and contribution base.

I truly believe that most faith-based conservatives believe in the Bible’s almost 3,000 teachings to take care of the poor and hungry, for instance. The Democratic party historically is the side of the political aisle advocating assistance for the needy, hungry, homeless, disabled, etc. Yet I don’t hear people stereotyping all Republicans as advocating a cut-off of all programs and assistance for the less fortunate among us.

There are believing, practicing Christians on both sides of the aisle, and there are prsently huge populations of atheists and agnostics on both sides of the aisle. The Republican party is currently riddled with Ayn Rand-atheists who worshop the almighty dollar, and the Bush budget is clearly reflective of such thinking. Meanwhile, the Democratic party, of course, has a lion’s share of the God-denying, self-worshipping atheists.

And lastly, morals are not the exclusive realm of Christianity or even faith. And Christianity has not always acted in a moral manner.

A Christian blogger is simply someone who has been saved by their faith in Jesus Christ. Hopefully, the teachings of Jesus are reflected in their blog.

Jane…Everyone has the right and privilege to limit attendance at their conference to whomever they choose. It’s when they claim that their exclusionary conference is fully representative of God’s people and all of faith communities that it gets dicey. I am not sure that GodBlogCon is doing that. Conference organizers should probably be careful to appropriately label the confab.

Lately, when most conservative Christians refer to faith-based anything, they are referring to their faith….not all faiths. They do not consider other faiths and faith traditions to be…valid, I guess. (Not sure valid is the correct word, but it’s close enough.)

Hi La Shawn,
I haven’t read every word of every comment so forgive me if this has been said already.
I really see two questions here:
1. Are you blogging mainly for others in your interest/faith group?
2. Are you blogging for people in your group and outside of your group?

A lot of Christian blogs are written for other Christians. Some aren’t. I expect it’s the same for other faith bloggers. I know of one muslim blogger who blogs for a wider audience than just other muslims on Islamic topics and current events.

Also – and you’ll know why I’m saying this I think – do they want to reach an international readership or just a US one? If international – why?
If just US – why?
Those questions lead to interesting thoughts about what the internet opens access to.
Love in Him,
Catez

A few random thoughts:
1. How is faith based blogging strengthening the religious community?
2. Is it allowing people of faith to feel less isolated and more connected?
3. Is it helping the religious community regain ground lost to political correctness so that Christians feel they can publicly celebrate holidays like Christmas with nativity scenes on the town square? Rather simplistic example – sorry. Hope it conveys the idea.

Best of luck next week.

LaShawn,

The biggest difficulty in “faith-based blogging,” I think, and also in leading discussions with non-Christians, is the fact that what you and I mean by the word “faith” is fundamentally different from what the average American means by faith. (Some of your commenters looked like they were starting that idea but it didn’t seem to take root in the discussion.) I’d say that most people who would think of themselves as “faith-based” are what I’d call “Truth-oriented,” while Americans in general are “Therapy-oriented,” and between the two there is a great gulf fixed…at least where communication is concerned.

IMHO: if you want to understand why apparently nice people can be so intolerant over religion — including people who seem constantly to be talking about the importance of tolerance (but who can’t say the word “fundamentalist” without sneering) — then you have to understand the role dominant metaphors play in religion. There are seven critical points you must grasp.

(1) Whenever someone thinks about religion, he thinks of religion in terms drawn from a particular dominant metaphor. That metaphor makes it possible for him to think about religion meaningfully, but it also puts limits on his religious thought. It is also from that metaphor that he draws — without even thinking about it — his assumptions about what a person ought to feel about various situations in which religion is involved; when it comes to religion, all his motivations and emotions are drawn from the metaphor, not from religious beliefs standing on their own.

(2) Very, very few people have consciously chosen which metaphor they are going to use — in fact, very few people are aware that they are using any metaphor at all. It’s rarely the case that people have looked at the different metaphors available, weighed the choices, and chosen the one they think is most appropriate. The vast majority of the time people are conditioned by their upbringing (by all the complex human relationships and formative experiences that we subsume under the word “culture”) to use a particular dominant metaphor to make sense of religion. Furthermore, when they do become aware that there is a difference, somewhat more often than not they automatically assume that their own culture’s metaphor is the “right” one.

(3) Therefore most people assume, without thinking about it, that everybody else who talks about religion is working from the same metaphor they are, and they draw conclusions about other people’s motivations and emotions by trying to figure out what motivations or emotions would cause those actions or opinions to be generated from their own metaphorical framework.

(4) Two people who are using exactly the same words, but working from different fundamental metaphors, can mean radically different things — but if they don’t realize they are working from different metaphors, they usually think they understand what the other person is saying, and pass judgment accordingly on the other person’s opinions and/or character.

(5) Historically there seem to be four dominant metaphor-families that people have used to think about religion:

(a) Religion as superstition/opiate/poison.

(b) Religion as family/culture/clan membership/sense of belonging.

(c) Religion as therapy/tool/hobby/emotional pragmatism.

(d) Religion as truth/science/medicine.

I need names for these other than just the letters; so purely for the sake of having names I’ll refer to them as “Superstition,” “Family,” “Therapy,” and “Truth.”

(6) The predominant metaphor in modern Kazakh society (a particular interest of mine) is what I’m calling “Family.” The predominant metaphor in modern American society is “Therapy.” However, there is a very significant subculture of American society (which used to be the dominant culture and is extremely displeased at having now been relegated to minority status) for which the dominant metaphor of religion is “Truth.” And then much of the American Jewish subculture, and especially the more Orthodox variants of Judaism, come from a passionate attachment to metaphor “Family.” Finally, there is a small but vocal element that sees religion as “Superstition.”

(7) Most of the bitterness, hatred and intolerance in American society comes not from a disagreement on specific religious doctrines such as whether or not there is a hell that all infidels (from whichever perspective) will wind up in, but from a fundamental disagreement on whether religion ought to be thought of in terms of “Therapy” or in terms of “Truth.” And since this is not recognized as the fundamental issue — in fact it’s hardly recognized as an issue at all — all of the talking and arguing and mutual recrimination do absolutely nothing to move us toward any sort of reconciliation, since practically all of the sound and fury manages to miss the point entirely.

Now that’s the SHORT version [grinning]…seriously, I’m really just trying to work this out. There’s a lot more of my trying to give examples of what I’m talking about at http://redneckperil.blogspot.com/2005/04/defusing-religious-conflict.html (sorry to self-advertise there).

In your case I’d say that a sizable percentage of what you say will be heard by a bunch of people who (a) mean by the words “truth,” “faith,” “belief,” “tolerance,” “open-mindedness,” etc. something very different from what you or I would mean, but who (b) don’t realize that and (c) will assume that you mean what they would mean. At the very outset of the discussion, you might consider making explicit the fact that a “faith-based blogger” who believes that her faith is objectively, factually true the way science is true, is likely to have a different tone to her blog than is a “faith-based blogger” for whom her faith is something that “works for her” but might not work for somebody else. But maybe it’s just that I think that’s interesting because I’m working through that idea at the moment.

Sorry I ran on so long.

Kenny

P.S. You’re an excellent example of a Truth-based, faith-based blogger. Andrew Sullivan is an excellent example of a Therapy-based, faith-(but-in-a-quite-different-sense)-based blogger. For all of the talk Andrew has done about the new Pope, really most of his difficulty with the Pope comes down to the fact that the Pope is ineluctably Truth-oriented and Andrew is Therapy-oriented. Evangelical Christians mostly like the new Pope, because evangelical Christians are mostly Truth-oriented.

P.P.S. Hey, how about adding a “Preview” capability on these comments?

* Good News Saturdays, 2005
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006083.php

* Sabbath Prayer
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006715.php