Tim Tebow and the New Evangelical Witness

Image by Time MagazineThe original sin of the blogosphere is commenting on a popular piece of news without saying anything original. Such is the case with Tim Tebow, where plenty of cyber ink has been spilled. And yet, in the most unlikely place, I read something original on Tim Tebow yesterday. The highlight of the analysis (from Time writer Jon Meachem) is this:

"What is new and what makes Tebow an intriguing figure...is the scale and scope of his witness. With Billy Graham on the cool side of the mountain and George W. Bush living quietly in Dallas, Tebow is perhaps the most significant Evangelical Christian in the country."

The thought hadn't occurred to me before, but consider the history. The first and second Great Awakenings brought us high-profile pastors that spoke to large crowds. In many ways, Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were both the first evangelicals and the first celebrity pastors. Charles Finney brought more hype, excitement, and innovation to what it meant to be evangelical a hundred years later. And then we get to the 20th century, where the newer evangelicals brought us Billy Graham and, apparently, Christian evangelical Presidents.

The interesting thing about Tebow, then, is not so much about what Tebow says but about what Tebow says about us. Consider how the leading evangelicals in each stage matched the era's style of communication. Whitefield and Edwards would preach for much longer than an hour, to large outdoor audiences, living in a verbal culture with the only major form of media being the newspaper. Billy Graham entered in the era of radio and television, and thus preached to massive audiences via those media while also utilizing the stadium "crusade." And now, we have an evangelical who actually plays in a stadium every week.

This isn't to ridicule Tebow at all, but to point out his method of influence. The Time writer Meachum called him "perhaps the most significant Evangelical Christian in America." Why not a pastor or evangelist or writer? Because we live in an entertainment culture, and Tebow by trade is an entertainer. That's what sports- for how much I admittedly love them- are. They are entertainment. In a culture where influence is touted by soundbytes, and less than 144 charaters in Twitter, and by a pristine image, Tebow has risen to the fore not necessarily because of his message but because of his charisma and his profession.

It's not that I think Tebow is an unfortunate advocate of evangelical Christianity. In fact, I think he does admirably in his role. It's just that Tebow might be the most significant evangelical because he plays by all the media rules of our culture. He speaks in soundbytes and he looks good. He does well by playing by the rules.

It's just that I wish these weren't the rules.

Media and the Nature of Revolution

Some of the better conversations I've been in recently have been ruminations on what is happening all over the world, particularly in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, and many other places. It's got me to thinking about the nature of revolution and how it's carried along by new media. Consider the following:

a

• The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the advent of the printing press and movable type. Several figures, with theology similar to Martin Luther, preceded Luther by one hundred years (Wycliffe, Hus, et. al.) but most all were condemned as heretics. Gutenberg comes along, then Luther, then the whole scope of the western world is changed.
• The American colonies acted like 13 different countries, with differing reactions against England, until a guy named Thomas Paine comes along and writes a tract called Common Sense which spreads and fumes the American Revolution.
• The advent of the radio makes it really easy for people in Germany in the 1930s  to hear this influential speaker with their own ears, and they hang on his every word.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not meaning to make complex historical circumstances simplistic. I'm not insinuating that new media is the cause of revolution, or even the primary factor in revolution. But at a very base level, new media, throughout the world's history, has certainly had a role in increasing the scope and size and influence of revolutionary feelings at a popular level.

It's hard to know, though, if human history is in a pivotal world moment. Influential prognosticators are discussing the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, the Jasmine Revolution, and other middle-eastern revolutions as historically unprecedented for that region. On the other hand, people keep warning that we've seen revolution in the middle east before and all it's begotten is further Islamic Fundamentalism.

The lynchpin in all of this is new media. Twitter, facebook, and cellphone texting are the trump card for these new revolutions. These new technologies allow speed, ease, and massive groups of people to swarm to important areas in a hurry. Consider Twitter hashtags and texting. In a way that makes even Google seem monolithic, these technologies can be real-time, and provide rather accurate information within seconds. The role of the historian is being decentralized, and now history is being played out for all to see. On Twitter.

In all of this, it's important to remember what a philosophy professor once told my class: "that media technology isn't inherently positive or negative, but it isn't neutral either." Playing on Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman, his point was that technology doesn't just give us information neutrally, but that media technology shapes the very way we think about that information. 

Twitter isn't inherently evil or good, but it's use of being bad or good is in the eye of the user/preventer (as many governments are shutting down the use of the internet). But Twitter isn't neutral either. It is absolutely shaping world events as we speak. Because of Twitter,  these world events are all happening faster, with greater frequency, and with more widespread support in a way like never before.

Kinda reminds me of something Jesus said once.

Gone are the Days of Traditional Media?

I'm in Knoxville, TN (my hometown) this week for Thanksgiving, and I tracked down two stories with similar undertones. The way of the traditional media is fading fast. Writer's note: this post is a little dubious since I'm writing it on a blog, after all.

This first story from the Knoxville News-Sentinel mentions how many local television and print media outlets have had to lay off folks in the past several weeks due to the down economy.

This second essay is from Time Magazine and tracks how blogs and constant media updates shaped the Presidential election season. Essentially, blogs are making traditional reporting obsolete.

...[W]hile an article a day used to be a typical reporter's quota (or in the leisurely precincts of newsmagazines, an article a week), reporters are now expected to blog 24/7 as well. Not only that, they must perpetually update their stories, as in the old days of multiple newspaper editions. And they may well be handed a voice recorder and/or webcam and told to file audio and video too. Meanwhile, they are glancing over their shoulder and awaiting the Grim Reaper from HR with word of the latest round of layoffs.

So, traditional media is getting fired and blogs are filling the gaps and causing the downsizing in the first place. This is an interesting phenomenon, and one I don't necessarily like.

As a Christian and [at least I hope] a thoughtful human being, I truly care about truth. And truth is what is at stake in this phenomenon. Traditional journalism has a code of ethics and a general way about handling major stories with responsibility. Despite the biases of print journalism, it is generally of a higher quality of reporting and opining. I make no defense for television journalism, however (except for maybe 60 Minutes). Print journalism is supposed to care about the truth. Furthermore, the role of the newspaper disseminates better information than does television or blogs. One is not forced to chase link after link, but can handle all the information at one's fingertips. Newspapers are more thorough, accessible, and less image-heavy than the internet or the television. And unfortunately, the television and the internet generally have the presence of images without commentary so the images speak to their own truth (which is the essence of losing truth in the first place).

On the other hand, the proliferation of blogs has its positives. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit (see blog column on the left), wrote a book about the idea that blogs can take down traditional media by sharing the load amonst the little people (see An Army of Davids). Blogs are a watchdog of the traditional media, calling out its biases and reporting on the reporting. They do, however, break stories first often with misinformation because they have no journalistic standards. Rumors abound on the internet.

In sum, there are both positives and negatives to this movement, but in all I lament the decline of traditional journalism. There's something romantic and honorable about uncovering the truth. What do you think?