Introduction: Roger N. Overton (www.ATeamBlog.com)

Part One: The Landscape of New Media

Chapter One: The New Media: First Thoughts -Dr. John Mark Reynolds (Scriptorium Daily)

Chapter Two: The Future of New Media -Dr. John Mark Reynolds (Scriptorium Daily)

Chapter Three:Three Cautions among the Cheers: The Dangers of Uncritically Embracing New Media - Matthew L. Anderson (Mere Orthodoxy Blog)

Chapter Four: Beginning Bloggers Toolbox -Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost)

Chapter Five: Beginner's Toolbox Part II: Even Newer New Media -- Podcasting, Video Casting and More ? Matthew Eppinette (Americans United for Life) and Terence Armentano (TerenceOnline.blogspot.com )

Chapter Fifteen: Social Justice, Social Relief and New Media -Stephen Shields (FaithMaps.org)

We'd like to offer some direction for how Christians can use the new media with discernment and grace. Many of the contributors to The New Media Frontier began using new media at the encouragement of national radio host Hugh Hewitt, so we are delighted that he has provided a foreword for the project. Roger Overton presents a brief introduction to the concept of new media and why Christians should engage it with wisdom. Part One of the book addresses new media in general. Dr. John Mark Reynolds begins with a chapter examining the history of human communication in order to provide a fresh perspective on what new media really is. In the second chapter, Dr. Reynolds looks to the future of new media and stresses the urgency for Christian involvement before the opportunities vanish.

Matthew Anderson contributes our third chapter by looking at what dangers new media pose for those who uncritically dive into it. His chapter advocates the careful use of wisdom in consuming and creating digital content. With the foundation laid by these first three chapters, chapters four and five spell out exactly how consumers can become creators in the new media. Joe Carter explains how to blog in chapter four and in chapter five Matthew Eppinette and Terence Armentano explain how to podcast and vlog.

Part Two of the book looks to specific areas in which Christians can utilize new media more thoroughly and specifically. These areas include: Theology (David Wayne), Community (Tod Bolsinger), Pastoral Ministry (Mark D. Roberts), Youth Ministry (Rhett Smith), Evangelism & Apologetics (Roger N. Overton), Academics (Fred Sanders), Education (Jason Baker), Politics (Scott Ott), Bioethics (Joe Carther & Matthew Eppinette), and Social Justice (Stephen Shields).

While these brief explorations of each topic will in no way say everything that could or should be said, we do hope they can help to start a process of critical assessment so that when Christians use new media they will do so in a manner consistent with the character and quality of Christ. After finishing the book, readers should have an effective understanding of how they can advance, demonstrate, and utilize the Christian worldview through the use of new media.

John MacArthur?s The Power of Integrity provides an exploration of integrity and what it looks like for the people of God to embody it. The first three chapters of the book deal with the definition and foundations of integrity. MacArthur argues that integrity of character is dependent upon union with Christ and integrity of doctrine, and that our ?resources in this process are always God?s Word and prayer. Through them you gain the mind of Christ (Col. 3:16).? (p21)

The second part of the book (chapters 4-6) look to various examples of integrity demonstrated in the Bible and in the lives of Christians. MacArthur explores the actions of Daniel and his friends while captive in Babylon, missionary Hudson Taylor, preacher Charles Spurgeon, and the Apostle Paul. All of these provide a clearer picture of how God?s people can practically live out the integrity they are called to.

In the final chapters, MacArthur lays out the practice of integrity in the life of the believer. Instead of being passive or pietistic, we are to work with ?fear and trembling? while utterly depending on God?s work in our lives. We are to seek personal holiness through the various relationships in our lives and that leads to practical holiness that?s displayed in love toward our Christian brethren as well as our enemies. At the end of the book is a helpful study guide for personal or group study and application.

In general, there?s nothing new or original about this book. And there shouldn?t be. The call to live a life of holiness as Christ is holy is ancient and yet we still fail at it. MacArthur merely takes these teachings and focuses our attention on them in a manner that is biblical and effectively practical. Among the many reasons for us to pursue integrity, one is that we live before a watching world. John MacArthur challenges us to look different from the world by living lives devoted to God without compromise. As the church continues to blend in with the watching world, books such as The Power of Integrity are necessary reminders of our responsibility to be work out our sanctification in this life.

However, I believe there are serious problems with some of the claims and solutions presented in the paper, and that some of these are more dangerous than the main concern Dr. Moreland is addressing. An "over-commitment" to the Bible may be wrong, but it is far better than under-commitment, and I believe under-commitment is far more prevalent. Consider the recent studies (such as Christian Smith's) that demonstrate the strength of relativism (or ?moral therapeutic deism?) among Christian youth today. Such beliefs do not result from an over-commitment to the Bible. It may be possible to sin as a result of over-commitment, but I would argue that most sins are committed as a result (in part) of under-commitment to the authority and teaching of the Bible.

The proper corrective is not to criticize the few who may be over-committed, but hold accountable the many who are under-committed. This command was given to the disciples by Jesus: ?teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you? (Matthew 28:20) Paul told Timothy that ?All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.? (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The leaders of the church are not responsible for teaching people extra-biblical knowledge as Dr. Moreland suggests, they are responsible for teaching the Bible and holding their sheep accountable to it- not to natural theology or ?words of knowledge.? If Christians are to be holy as Christ is holy (1 Peter 1:15-16), if Christians are live as one so that the world will know that the Father sent the Son (John 17:20-21), then they will do so because of a strong commitment to the Bible, not because of extra-biblical knowledge they may pick up along the way. The vast majority of Christians desperately need to be more committed to the Bible, not less.

In arguing that the ?best explanation? for over-commitment ?is historical and sociological,? Dr. Moreland commits a genetic fallacy. While Dr. Moreland?s claim may be true of some people, the majority of those he is criticizing have arguments for what they believe. Instead of engaging in people?s arguments against natural theology, extra-biblical knowledge of spirits, and his Third Wave version of divine guidance, Dr. Moreland criticizes their possible intellectual heritage and dismisses their arguments. He does this in his section on ?Why are Contemporary American Evangelicals Over-committed to the Bible?? and when he cites Richard B. Gaffin on page 8.

Dr. Moreland?s failure to address the biblical arguments of those who disagree with him, to provide biblical support for any of the claims he made in his paper and his over-emphasis on extra-biblical knowledge leave me doubtful about his commitment to the Bible as the ultimate authority and ?source of relevant knowledge.? Certainly the Bible is relevant in these issues, so I can only hope that he demonstrates the commitment he claims to have in his book since it is absent from his paper.

[Editorial note: My language about being "doubtful about his commitment to the Bible" was too strong and I apologize for any confusion that caused. I am concerned, but I am not to the point of doubting his commitment.]

Dr. Richards? purpose was to respond to an argument popular amongst atheists in the blogosphere, and he also attributed it to skeptic Michael Shermer. The argument typically goes something like this: ID theorists believe order in nature is due to intelligent design because they see ?reliable indicators.? Many of these theorists also favor free markets. However, market order cannot be designed, as exemplified by the failed attempts to plan economies that ended in disaster. Free market order is an example of the appearance of design without a designer, therefore ID theorists live in contradiction.

Hayek and other notable economists have argued that it is epistemologically impossible to plan markets. Free markets coordinate goods between producers and consumers who are often unaware of each other in a way that usually benefits all who are involved. To plan such a market would require an incredible amount of knowledge that simply isn?t feasible.

Adam Smith claimed that people develop goods because of self-interest, the primary motivation is not the interest of others. Smith believed an ?invisible hand? guides the promotion of better goods in such a market. Interestingly, Smith was a deist and believed that this hand was God?s providence.

Hayek put forward a more sophisticated argument against the notion that markets can be designed:

1)      Subjective Theory of (Economic) Value- Value is determined by what the consumer is willing to pay for the product.

2)      Humans are not telepathic or omniscient.

3)      Therefore, no human can coordinate a market better than the spontaneous ordering of a market.

Perhaps one could plan an incredibly limited market, but markets of any complexity require spontaneous order. Hayek went a step further and claimed that order from chaos occurs in natural sciences (i.e. natural selection), so there?s no principled problem with finding order from chaos in economics. Hayek would have been wiser to stick to his area of study.

Does Hayek?s argument show that markets can?t be designed? He has shown that no human can plan a market, but could God? Of course- God is omniscient so He has the knowledge required for such a task. Hayek?s argument works well against socialist planning of markets, but does not prove that markets can?t be designed by a being with knowledge of everything.

The writers' strike is nothing.  Just think about how things used to be for Jack Bauer.

Seriously, how did we live like this? 

The scary part is that the actual 24 started only seven years after 1994.  That's almost the same amount of time between now and the first episode of the series in 2001.  Where on earth will we be seven years from now?

(HT:  Derek White)

This paper was essentially a summary of Dr. House?s chapter in the recently released Reasons for Faith ed. Norman Geisler and Chad Meister. The following is my summary of his paper and reflects my understanding of the points Dr. House made.

The apologetic debate is over whether God intends to use general revelation to bring about salvific belief. The central question is: Do we share any common ground with the unbeliever?

Classical and Evidential apologetics acknowledge that unbelievers can understand some truth. The difference between them is the Classical begins at first principles and Evidential begins anywhere. Presuppostional apologetics deny unbelievers can understand any truth until after regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

A crucial distinction is needed between ?believing in? and ?believing that.? Evidential apologetics can be used to bring someone to the point of ?believing that.? ?Believing in? requires regeneration. For example, there have been Jewish scholars who have affirmed that the resurrection of Jesus is a historically verifiable event. But there differ regarding the meaning of the resurrection- whether or not Jesus is the messiah. They believe ?that? but not ?in.?

Evidence can assist a person to belief in Christ by removing factual obstacles. The task of apologetics is to show the truth of objective reality. The move to embrace belief in (from belief that) requires the subjective work of the Spirit. The Spirit makes meaning of the historically objective reality.

In Acts, the audience has no familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures- much like where our culture is going today. Paul started with creation: God?s existence and nature, and moved on to what God has done. His framework was provided by his theology found in Romans 1: that ?they knew God.? Many people understand with their mind but do not receive in their hearts.

Paul sought common ground with his audience. Instead of wasting time with pointless rabbit trail debates, he pointed out that they both believed in God and kerygma. He moved from what they accepted to what they did not know. Paul also assumed that he was being understood- that those in his audience could follow the logic of his argument (another aspect of common ground).

I gave this very brief answer recently when asked, "Why does the argument for a first cause of the universe conveniently stop with God?  Where did God come from?"

An infinite regress of causes is logically impossible. That is, there could not have been an infinite number of successive events in the past because we never would have reached the events happening now.

This means, by necessity, if the world came into existence, there was a first cause beginning the world. Since nothing caused that first cause (by definition), the first cause 1) had to have begun this world by a decision of will (because the first event was not a natural result of an earlier event, and only a personal being can initiate something that's not an automatic result of a natural cause), and 2) had to be, as the first cause, a self-existent being that did not come into existence. That being is God. By definition, He does not have a cause.

If you ask, "Who created God?" you're really just asking, "Who is the real God--the true first, self-existent, personal cause?" because the one true God--the initiator of everything--does not have a cause. 

Paul Spears compared this masterpiece by Rubens to a portrait of an 18th century man.  Both were technically excellent, but the first had substance that the second lacked--passion, a story, something deeper than a semi-narcissistic commissioned portrait.

In the same way, we should not only have the same kind of technical craftsmanship that the great artists had when creating their paintings (in our case, correct grammar, spelling, and language), but if we want to have significant blogs, we also need the kind of substance demonstrated in the Rubens painting.  The story and ideas of Christ and our Christian worldview need to support and surround everything that we write.  Our posts ought to point our readers to bigger, more important things and increase their understanding of the truth about the world.

This will be much easier to do if we keep our focus on God rather than our own importance and self-centered ambition.  The motivation for our blogging had better be a transcendent cause--our calling to serve Christ--rather than a desire to build our own little blogging kingdom where we get a certain number of hits and readers.  Though the human temptation is to move in the second direction, attracting us to the trendy (not to mention boring) rather than the deep, we have to fight its pull; it's the easiest way to kill the long-term value and significance of our work.

John Mark Reynolds had some good advice about how to not burn out as a blogger.  He particularly emphasized the need for us to write less about ourselves and more about external ideas.  Begin with an outer focus and then reflect on the inner implications.  If we do the opposite, the likely result will be that we'll become boring as we end up saying nearly the same thing every day (whatever our pet ideas happen to be), twisting every topic into a way to get our own agenda across.

Secondly, we ought to blog for the permanent side of the blogosphere rather than for our immediate readers.  In other words, even as we're commenting on timely topics, there ought to be a certain timelessness to our commentary so our work will continue to be of value.  Posts that offer this will be stumbled upon and accessed by people for years to come, and in this way our impact will possibly be greater in the long term than we would expect from our number of usual readers. 

As an aid to both of the above goals, Dr. Reynolds reminded us that the best new media relies on old media (books, film, etc.) and not on other new media.  If we're taking in great ideas and reflecting on them and their goodness, beauty, and truth, and if we make our goal to see the face of God rather than to exalt ourselves, we'll persevere in creating valuable, lasting work.

The comments from Al Mohler remind me of a big concern I have about Emergent Christians.  Because language is so central to being a Christian, we need to take special care to use words as precisely and meaningfully as possible.  Emergents recognize the key role of language, but many of them mistakenly believe that it's language itself that creates truth (rather than reflects it) for our community.  Their focus on using language to create a better world or influence theology rather than on striving to accurately represent truth through the proper use of language inevitably leads to two things.  First, it leads to a misuse of language as a means to manipulate the perspectives of the readers or listeners.  Second, not rooting your language in a reality that exists outside of yourself means your language will drift, and as it drifts, you will ultimately create barriers between yourself and other people (Christians and non-Christians) who use language differently, as you can hear in this interview.

As Christians for whom communication is absolutely central, we cannot afford to let either of these consequences come about.

After noting that it's an anomaly to find a Southern Baptist in Las Vegas, Al Mohler talked more of the irony of the idea that "we came to a place of deception in order to talk about the truth."

He said that, as Christians, we should be known as people who have something to say.  Communication is central to what we do.  It's a special gift from God, and we have a mandate to spread the good news.  The gift of communication is a special trust that was twisted in the Fall, leading to slander, propaganda, etc.; we should not misuse it.

There is communication from God to us--the revelation God gave of Himself came to us through words.  Words are central in our communication with each other within the body of Christ as we instruct and exhort.  Evangelism also requires words; we can only make the nations glad if we use words.  We can use more than words, but never less.

Movable type enabled Christians to print pamphlets, books, and newspapers.  Radio made things even more simple; anyone can listen to a radio broadcast.  Cassette distribution expanded our ability to influence even further.  Unfortunately, the technology that increased our ability to communicate also increased the opportunity for Christians to embarrass themselves, and the quality of what we do has not always kept pace with the availability.  Since new media is so immediately accessible and publishable, we increase exponentially our ability to make huge mistakes, not to mention our tendency to be sloppy.  There's very little editing, and even less proper self-censorship.

Did You Know 2.0:

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us: