Blog: Faithfully Online

Back in December 2009, I introduced the book The Mortification of Sin and described how John Owen's short book which was written almost 350 years ago has helped me understand the power of sin in my life. Owen does an amazing job at explaining what the Bible describes as the "deceitfulness of sin" or how we are blinded to our heart's true condition.

 Reading my new one year Bible today, I was struck by these words from Jesus, "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander." (Matt 15:18-19)

 In chapter 2, Owen describes why we must mortify (or destroy) sin in our lives. He describes the details of each of these items in the book. Here are his reasons:

 1. Indwelling sin always abides while we are in this world. 

 2. Sin is acting and laboring to bring forth the deeds of the flesh.

 3. Sin, if not continually mortified, will bring forth great, cursed, scandalous, and soul-destroying sins (Gal. 5:19-20).

 4. The Holy Spirit and our new nature are given to us to oppose sin and lust (Gal. 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4). 

 5. Neglect of this duty makes the inner man decay instead of renewing him (2 Cor 4:16).

 6. Our spiritual growth is our daily duty (2 Cor 7:1; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18).

 Owen goes on to describe the condition of many professing Christians living during his lifetime: "Perhaps we might find that, judging by the principle of mortification, the number of true believers is not as multiplied as it appears from those who made a mere profession.... If vain spending of time, idleness, envy, strife, variance, emulations, wrath, pride, worldliness, selfishness are the mark of Christians, we have them among us in abundance."

 Wow! And that was back in the 17th century! How much more true is this statement today with the behaviors displayed on the Internet, TV, video games, etc? In other words, Owen is pointing out that our thoughts and actions give evidence of whether or not we are true believers. 

While it is true that we are saved by grace, "He who is able to swallow and digest daily sins in his life without conviction in the heart is at the very brink of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Let a man pretend what he will, little concern over sin is a serious offence to the grace and mercy of God!"

 Owen moves on and points out how our lives affect others and can provide an evil influence. Others watch professing Christians and think that they are just as good as those people who, "have a zeal for religion, but it is not accompanied with righteousness. They view their worldly and selfish lives. They see them talk spiritually but live vainly."

 This condition can even leave others into a serious misunderstanding and false condition. "It deceives them to think that if they can just be as good as the unmortified professor (other person) it shall be well with them. In reality they might even go further in 'holiness' than the unmortified professor, and yet still fall short of eternal life."

    Yes, this is just some of the solid meat in one chapter. I will go on next time to describe some of Owen's solutions based on Christ's teaching and the Apostle Paul's guidance in Romans.   

 But what is just as exciting to me is the practical reality that God's Word and Owen's teachings prove to be true in real life. Our everyday experience matches what Owen describes. Our online battles are real, and the Biblical solutions provide answers that work. Just read the papers, listen to testimonies, watch how people are deceived in cyberspace.

 So often it starts with "small sins" or "little white lies" that lead to much, much more. and grows and grows.   For some, their online behavior even leads to jail time. Check out this story as an example.

 Next time, I'll speak to some of Owen's solutions, but I encourage readers to buy and read this book. You won't regret it

Any thoughts on cyber sin?

 It's Christmas Eve (morning), and everywhere I go online I'm reading about avatars. Whether you are heading to the movies or buying last minute gifts, it seems that this new word is becoming more globally mainstream.

   Starting with the movie, which I haven't seen yet, Avatar opened to a pretty good $73 million weekend. I won't comment on the movie, except to say that everyone seems to be talking about it at work.

  Perhaps even more interesting are the many articles about virtual worlds and buying real Christmas presents for online characters. Many people I speak with don't understand this growing trend, but they didn't understand MySpace or Facebook's attraction a few years back. Now they do.

Take this USA Today article about hot selling, but cheap, virtual Christmas presents. Here are a few significant excerpts that I believe are very relevant for all of us.

"Sebastien de Halleux, COO of Playfish, which owns 11 social games and virtual worlds played on social networks, explained the appeal in an interview with Inside Social Games, a blog run by Inside Network. Some of the 8 million people who bought pumpkins on Pet Society this year said they were doing it so their friends could 'check out their Halloween decorations.'

'How many friends can go to your real house vs. check out how you've expressed yourself in a game on Facebook or MySpace?' he asked. "So the value of a virtual good can be in some cases higher than that of physical goods.'"

The entire article is worth reading, but here are more interesting thoughts:

"IMVU CEO Cary Rosenzweig, a former marketing manager for Tide, says virtual goods 'nvolve you to a greater degree and accelerate your standing in the virtual world.' Users, he says, 'don't think of the world as real life and this as 'fake stuff.'"

And another expert compared purchasing virtual items to the use of eBay in its early days.

 One more story: Check out this YouTube video on the first ever marriage between a real man and a video game character. I know this sounds crazy, but so do all of these first time Internet stories. This is a step beyond previous articles on marriages and divorces of avatars.

  So what's my point? Virtual worlds and virtual characters are becoming more and more popular. As described in detail in my book, this trend will accelerate over the next decade, until we all have avatars. Avatars will become as popular as IMing and email. This trend raises huge questions for all of us who go online.

 A central question will become: how can you surf your values in cyberspace? 

What are your thoughts on avatars?

  Over the past year, I have presented various aspects of Virtual Integrity to a variety of secular and Christian audiences all over the country. One of the most thoughtful questions that I consistently get revolves around end user motivations online. The question is asked in different ways, but the essence is this: What motivates virtual integrity?

 Some interested attendees have come up to me after a lecture and said something to the effect, "The seven habits of virtual integrity are great, but it all comes down to heart issues. People will do what they really want to do on the Internet."

A few have been even a little more critical, "Could these practices lead towards works-based righteousness?" As the son of a Lutheran pastor, "grace alone" and "faith alone" were more than just famous theological debating topics, so I take these questions very seriously.     

 Initially, I had a chapter on motivation in the book. The draft chapter title was: "Where's Does Motivation Come From? Faith and Hope in the Information Age." My editor strongly recommended removing it, which we did, since my writing mainly pointed to others who are far more articulate on this topic than I. There is an age old adage that goes something like, "If you can't say it better, quote it."

 Still, motivation for integrity is a very important topic, one that is much more fundamental than my book. As a Christian, the issue deals with the wider area of destroying sin, not just cyber or online sin (or sins), and overcoming all types of temptation. 

I certainly agree, that our surfing actions and habits all start with our heart's desire. I like to use the example of Tolkien's "ring of power" from Lord of the Rings. We all have a "precious." While we think we can control our precious for our advantage or satisfaction, that precious will ultimately control us.      

So over the next few months, I want to point you towards a few excellent resources to help with this important question of online motivation or heart issues. There are a few authors and books that have truly changed my life and outlook on this topic. One of those books is: The Mortification of Sin by John Owen. I like the abridged version that was made easy to read by Richard Rushing (The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004). I have read this short book many, many times, and I always learn something new. I highly recommend it, and I have purchased and given away numerous copies.  

 Don't be afraid of the word "mortification." To mortify sin simply means to crush, put down or even to kill sin and its affects in our lives.  Christians are commanded to mortify sin in the Bible.

"Put to death (mortify) therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these, the wrath of God is coming." (Col 3:5-6)  

Here's an amazing quote from chapter two of The Mortification of Sin: "Do you mortify? Do you make it your daily work? You must always be at it while you live; do not take a day off from this work; always be killing sin or it will be killing you."   

 I will go into more specifics on the book next time, but I want to be clear that the famous Puritan (John Owen) is NOT suggesting we can do this alone or in our own strength. Rather, he writes to Christians on overcoming sin and temptation in all areas of life. He describes the work of God in us through the Holy Spirit. And yet, he emphasizes our daily duty and the Apostle Paul's example of disciplining the body (1 Cor. 9:27).

 What I love about this book is how practical it is. It gets at the "nitty gritty" when it comes to sin and temptation. He describes in detail how sin destroys and how it takes control and grows in our lives. It's almost like having our enemy's playbook. Needless to say, it is easiest to eliminate sin before the roots become too deep.

 After one recent seminar I received an unexpected letter in the mail. This Christian man confessed lustful desires that had been ever-present since he was a teenager. Now, the Internet was making matters worse - facing daily temptations at work that attracted him towards the dark side of the net.

He loved the book Virtual Integrity, but he had more questions on his "precious" and help in overcoming sin in his life. I sent him a copy of Owen's book.

 Our virtual lives are tied to our physical lives and it all starts with our thought life. In the end, we will all be held to account. Thanks be to God that we have time-tested answers that work. (Owen wrote his book in 1656.) It has never been more relevant than now!

More thoughts next time on The Mortification of Sin by John Owen. This book is fundamental to motivating Christian virtual integrity in the 21st century.  

 A good friend sent me an article this week that was written by Eric Schmidt, who is Google's CEO. His comment was that this article read just like the beginning of chapter 9 from the book Virtual Integrity. You decide if my friend is right.

The article is entitled: How Google Can Help Newspapers Here's an excerpt:

"It's the year 2015. The compact device in my hand delivers me the world, one news story at a time. I flip through my favorite papers and magazines, the images as crisp as in print, without a maddening wait for each page to load.

Even better, the device knows who I am, what I like, and what I have already read. So while I get all the news and comment, I also see stories tailored for my interests. I zip through a health story in The Wall Street Journal and a piece about Iraq from Egypt's Al Gomhuria, translated automatically from Arabic to English. I tap my finger on the screen, telling the computer brains underneath it got this suggestion right."

 Of course, there are differences. Schmidt's scene is in 2015 not 2012 as in the book. He is looking for content on a device reader, while I am personalizing my visit at a hotel. Still the basic ideas are the same. Eric Schmidt wants us to be able to surf our values, as described in chapters 9 & 10. He uses different words, but the direction is clear.

What are your thoughts?

  Computerworld just ran a good article on Google's new dashboard, which tells users what specific data Google has stored on their servers about them. Here's a quote:

  "The company said the Dashboard is set up so that users can control the personal settings in each Google product that they use. Google said the Dashboard tool supports more than 20 products and services, including Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Web History, YouTube, Picasa, Talk, Reader, Alerts and Google Latitude."   

 The Computerworld article goes on to discuss what information is not displayed, such as data linked to your computer's IP address or information on where you have searched.

  More information on how to use your Google Dashboard can be found at this unofficial Google blog website. 

  I still believe that we are heading in the direction I describe in my book Virtual Integrity chapters 9 & 10. It will be interesting to see how these services progress with Microsoft and Google (regarding the tracking and use of our information) in 2010.

  When I spoke at a church in Sawyer, Michigan, yesterday, many Christian men expressed a strong interest in not seeing so many tempting ads and commercials. That is, why can't this personal data profile be used for good to allows us to surf our values in new ways. I still think the "surf your values" approach has legs and is an option that most consumers would appreciate. I describe this approach in detail in the book.

 Of course, users also want transparency around the data that companies have on them. They also want to be able to control privacy settings. This new Google service seems like a nice step in the right direction.

What are your thoughts? Sign up for free and let me know.

 There continues to be a steady diet of articles being released on networking etiquette and what is acceptable or not when updating social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. Meanwhile, blogs and online news are starting to face the same questions that print media are dealing with regarding "free speech."

Unfortunately, many people still seem to draw the line at what is legal and not at what actions or statements are kind, helpful or courteous. The online norm still seems to be focused on getting attention - not doing the right thing.

  The questions are endless, but here are a few: What is considered private or personal anymore? How do we deal with upcoming "private" events that may eventually become public, like surprise birthday parties? When does free speech become hate speech? While this may seem like a "no-brainer" to many readers, the "acceptable" line has moved so far that everyone must now be on guard online at all times. 

 Here are a few examples to consider: Online Hate Specch: Difficult to police ... and define. Here an interesting quote:

 "An application on Facebook asks people to answer a quiz so they can see what "famous retard" they are most like. A Maryland police officer hosts a site with more than 100,000 members that tells people to 'Stop breaking the law, retard.' In July, a YouTube video hosted by 'ExecutetheGays1' provided graphic suggestions about how to kill homosexuals. The site was taken down after five days...."

 Or how about a less severe case? Consider:  Don't post that! -- networking etiquette emerges.  "Stephanie Kahn wanted to bask in her engagement for a few hours before diving into the task of calling aunts, uncles and good friends with the big news. And even before she could call them, she had a surprise party to attend, one that her fiance had set up for their parents and her 'closest group of girlfriends.'  That party was when Kahn lost control of her news...."  

 One more: Is Islamophobia a Worldwide Free Speech Threat? 

"In Denmark, a 15-year-old Danish boy faces prison time for distributing leaflets warning that the country could someday become a Muslim nation and that he thinks that is a bad thing. A Danish prosecutor called the leaflets 'hate speech.'

Yet, across the water in Sweden, it was not hate speech when a leading national newspaper printed an article a few weeks ago claiming that Israeli soldiers harvest and sell organs from dead Palestinians. Some say that claim amounts to the anti-Semitic Jewish blood libel, that Jews commit human sacrifice on non-Jews. 

The Swedish government, which defended the newspaper, said it was free speech...."

 This last article hit home, since my 19-year old daughter likes to visit websites and blogs that discuss Christians witnessing to various people with other religions around the world. Some of her "innocent" statements have attracted unwanted attention from the other side of the globe.   

   So what are we to do? Chapter 5 of Virtual Integrity starts with this insightful statement from David Wells' book Losing Our Virtue, "We live precariously on the knife-edge between chaos and control. What was once an open space between law and freedom, one governed by character and truth, is now deserted, so law must now do what character has abandoned."

  This is a very difficult online problem that is getting worse, not better. I suspect that we will be struggling with these speech questions for the rest of our lives. I discuss several online strategies in the book, but it all starts with a recognition of the problems we all face.

One tip: we must stop and think before we click. Could my online comments, blog statements or email be used against me? Could my statements be taken out of context if forwarded to others? You never really know where your "private" words will end up online, so be very careful what you say or do online. Are you surfing your values?  

  Or in Biblical terms: "A perverse man stirs up disssension, and a gossip separates close friends." (Proverbs 16:28). 

 I came across an interesting article regarding the ongoing battle between Internet freedom and controlling online piracy. The London Times article entitled: An uncreative soultion to online piracy offers a fair view of the issue - before siding with the freedom side. 

 I highlight this article for several reasons. I have received several letters and article comments which point out many legitimate fears associated with new government controls regarding online conduct. In the same way that the majority distrust government regarding health care issues and the active debate on health insurance reform, many Christians distrust government regarding their monitoring of Internet activity. This fear has recently been expressed with headlines such as Bill would give President emergency control of Internet. I fully understand and respect these fears.

 There is also quite a bit of work being done globally to stop government censorship of the Internet in countries like China. There are many valid reasons to fight for Internet freedoms, and we certainly can't legislate morality.

 And yet .... to the "Internet freedom" crowd, I ask this question: what role should government have online? (Almost) everyone wants to stop child predators online, curtail plagiarism, reduce spam and help users be safe online, but is the government's role simply to provide web training and not enforce laws? I suspect we will be debating this question for decades to come.

 I tried to articulate a middle ground during a recent interview with The High Calling.

  "Think of the Internet as our new digital superhighway system. We have many freedoms on our roads, but we also have many laws. There are numerous parallels between roads and the Internet, including the need for good training, ensuring safety, and accepted codes of conduct.
 
At work, you must remember that the network belongs to your business. Courts have upheld that there is generally no presumption of privacy on company networks, and you must abide by acceptable use policies, as long as policies are clear and equally enforced. So remember, there are no "personal" messages at work—according to the law.

I also agree that controls alone will never solve our problems. There are thousands of ways to get around filters and controls, and we cannot rely on technology (or governments) alone to solve online problems. Solutions must address people, heart issues, repeatable processes, and technology." 

 Finally, Christians may rightly fear too much government intervention or too many external controls, but we need to take personal responsibility for our actions. Are you a part of the problem or the solution? That is, do you steal by copying music illegally? Are you truthful online? Do you have a separate Internet identity that would harm your family or career if the details were made public?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic of Internet freedoms.  It is easy to sign up and leave comments.

 In a speech to the North Carolina Technology Association, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's Chief Executive Officer (CEO),  said computers will become intuitive and know your intentions over the next decade. The Charlotte Observer covered the speech and here is an interesting quote:

 "When you type the word “Chicago” into a search engine, it will be able to determine whether you meant the city, the band or the musical based on your Internet history.

Another part of the future is the development of a more natural interface. Users will be able to speak to, touch and gesture at their computers even more."

 In another announcement, Microsoft said that their next version of Office 2010 will have a free online version for those willing to watch ads or commercial messages.

 I highlight both of these developments, since both of these trends were described in detail in the book Virtual Integrity, as well as predictions surrounding how temptations will accelerate in the workplace via these advertisements.

 A central question will become, how will the computer know my values? Who will keep that inventory? Will my beliefs and faith be respected in this new office?

  What are your thoughts on these developments?

 Over the past few months, I've been intrigued with the number of articles and blogs published which use the word "sins" as the topic. Here are a few: 

       The Seven Deadly Sins of Technology in Higher Education,

       Seven Deadly Sins of Social Networking Security,

       The Seven Deadly Office Sins. 

 Beyond the fact that each author used the number seven, I find it interesting how the word "sin" is now commonly used in society. For example I never thought of "mixing personal and professional life" as a sin. Nor have I ever been personally convicted with the idea that "distrusting new methods of acquiring knowledge" or "not emptying my inbox daily" were sins.

 While I suspect that these creative authors are just trying to attract attention online and use dramatic words to make a point, this trend is a symptom of a very serious issue online today. Namely, what's right and what's wrong on the net? Yes, the general topic is not new, since Pilot asked Jesus, "What is truth?" But the Internet has taken defining good and evil to a new level.

 Several people have asked me why I wrote Virtual Integrity from a Christian perspective. One of the reasons was that I wanted to address this question that Tim Keller describes as the all important "who sez" in his great book The Reason for God. That is, who defines what's allowed and not allowed? As a Christian, integrity for me is grounded in God's Word, the Bible. 

 US and international law is another answer that is commonly used as the benchmark, but laws change over time and vary around the world. Many people ignore laws and illegally download files or plagiarize content without thinking twice.

 Differences are also evident amongst Christians. Although the vast majority of comments on the book are positive on Amazon.com, Jack H. David wrote this under the heading What Does He Mean By Wrong? 

"Lohrman apparently makes the assumption that 'Christian values' is an objective entity that is universal and definable. I disagree. There are many Christian denominations and many more individual Christians with different interpretations of such subjective concepts as 'right or wrong.' I, for example, am a Christian who believes in salvation by grace alone - that we do 'good' things not to be saved, but because we are saved. I have a personal relationship with God, and I do not need Lohrman, or anyone else, to quantify the parameters of right and wrong for me. I know, within the boundaries of my own conscience, what is right and what is wrong. If I do something that is 'wrong,' it is because I choose to do so - and I alone am responsible for the consequences."  

 I thank Mr. David for submitting his comments, but I want to address one of his points.  

In chapters 7 and 8, I describe the process for "surfing your values" and connecting your offline values with your online world. On page 123 of Virtual Integrity I write, "Each person must be comfortable with where they stand on Christian ethics. My main purpose in this point is not to question different Christian values and beliefs, as long as they are biblically based. Rather, I urge you to inform and transform your online life by first clarifying overall values."

 I have no desire to "quantify the parameters of right and wrong" for you. That is not my place. However, I do believe in objective truth, and  I offer the Bible as the basis for Christian ethics and parameters for right and wrong. I specifically point to the Ten Commandments and Christ's teachings on the Sermon on the Mount as accepted Christian teaching for the vast majority of denominations.

However, I agree with your statement that our own conscience decides what is right and wrong. Sadly, many people have different standards and behaviors for their online and offline life. My hope is that we can connect the two, but I also agree that our salvation is not dependent on our performance. God's grace inspires and enables integrity and ethics both offline and online.

Bottom line: The seven habits of online integrity are disciplines that I hope can help you surf your values - not mine or anyone else's.  Once we have thought through and articulated our personal boundaries for right and wrong with trusted family and friends, living with integrity in a virtual world means that we do what we say and say what we do in cyberspace. Through it all, we are ultimately accountable to God, and we rely on His grace and forgiveness when we make mistakes.       

   Several non-Christians have thanked me for grounding my perspectives on the historic Bible. One said, "even when I don't agree, I know that you base your definitions on something solid."

What are your thoughts about defining "right and wrong" in cyberspace?

Do you have a problem with using the word "sins" in this way?

  The Internet is full of intriguing global stories displaying the power of the social networking site Twitter.com.  The Washington Post published a story today entitled: Iran Elections: A Twitter Revolution. Here's are some excerpts:

 "The State Department asked social-networking site Twitter to delay scheduled maintenance earlier this week to avoid disrupting communications among tech-savvy Iranian citizens as they took to the streets to protest Friday's reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

"Washington, D.C.: It seems like this is maybe the first time that technology has played such a role, with text messages and pictures on Twitter and other sites plus the use of cell phone cameras too. Is it a first? What is the Iranian government doing to try to stop information from coming out?

Evgeny Morozov: It's definitely not a first time. Technology has traditionally played a very important role in facilitating protest; remember that the early anti-communist protests in Poland were facilitated with the help of the Xerox machines! In the last decade, we have seen technology play a crucial role in helping people gather and, most importantly, get heard. Some of it was with the help of SMS technology; some -- with the help of blogs. You can look at the protests in the Philippines, Ukraine, Belarus, Burma, Moldova in the last decade and see that technology has been playing a very strong role in all of them!"

 Back in April, a similar description of events in Moldova was entiled: The Twitter Revolution that Wasn't. Here's a quote:

"We've been waiting a long time for political upheaval to follow in the wake of technological change, and on April 7, it seemed to have arrived. From Moldova, of all places, came news of the Twitter Revolution: In one of the poorest backwaters in Europe -- a place that frequently features in global surveys as the world's unhappiest country -- a group of fresh-faced young people reportedly used Twitter tweets, text messages and Facebook postings to organize a demonstration in favor of democracy and against rigged elections."

The article goes on to describe how things didn't go the way that democracy organizers had planned.

"What we witnessed on YouTube, in other words, was not a new kind of Twitter Revolution but, rather, a new kind of manipulated revolution; not an Orange or a Rose Revolution, but a revolution deliberately led astray."

 My point in this blog post is twofold. First, there is no doubt that Twitter and Facebook are very, very popular tools that are taking the entire world by storm right now. Technology is being used in exciting new ways by a new generation of tech-savvy millennials who truly want to change the world.

 But second, technology tools like Twitter clearly have their limits. We need to be thinking about changes in the areas of people, process and technology. Both sides can use these tools, and reliance on technology alone is certain to lead to disappointment.

 I found this excellent article called Redeeming Twitter at Christianity Today's website. If you are using, or considering the use of Twitter, you may find Heather Gemmen Wilson's comments to be helpful.

 I am excited by global developments in technology and social networks. I am encouraged that democracy may be advanced by utilizing cutting-edge tools like Twitter. But we must remember that these tools can just as easily be used for evil as for good.

 We live in exciting times. Our Christian faith can enable integrity in all areas of life, and even in our online activities. I encourage Christians to be ambassadors for good in cyberspace and fight to take back lost ground.

What are your thoughts on potential good and bad uses of Twitter?