Web is a Battlefield

“We are strong
No one can tell us we’re wrong
Searching online for so long
Both of us knowing
Web is a battlefield”

I had an interesting e-mail exchange over the past few days with an internet apologist who wrote a review of my book The Burial of Jesus. As it was behind a paywall, I asked whether I could be sent a copy. The first e-mail expressed “distrust” towards me and did not include the review. The second included the review and expressed outright animosity. I was astonished at the level of ire from someone with whom I had never exchanged e-mails or otherwise communicated at any previous point. Is it just a sign of my old age that I think people would normally be properly introduced before attacking one another? I found it particularly ironic because this individual’s main complain was that, by suggesting that Christians could learn from reading a certain book by multiple authors that presents atheists’ viewpoints, I had associated with a person (the editor of the volume) who is, in this apologist’s words, “of such disreputable character.” Since when did writing something like this (just click through and search for my name) constitute an endorsement of the behavior of a volume’s editor? Or do we live in an era in which, before writing a blurb for a book, one is expected to first spend time searching the internet for evidence of inappropriate behavior?

If we’re supposed to search online and get to know those we interact with, then there is still further irony, since it was clear that this apologist had never read my blog (since he sarcastically asked whether I would endorse someone who says Jesus does not exist.)

But what struck me most in this exchange is that this Christian apologist’s behavior was less like what I’d expect from an advocate for Christianity, and more like that of a hardened soldier who, on entering a village, assumes that the individual running towards them is likely to be another attacker and opens fire. While Rachel Held Evans recently said that her generation is ready to abandon the militant mindset of the culture wars that are typical of Ken Ham and others of his generation, I wonder if, while some of us are in the living room talking about peace and a change of Christian culture, we don’t have the very next generation upstairs on the internet fighting World Wide Web War I, and adopting an approach to their faith (and/or opposition to the faith of others) that seeks not to build bridges and communicate effectively, but to do as much harm to one’s opponent from behind a veil of anonymity.

What do others think? Are young Christians, atheists, and others growing up in a context that might be more conducive to conversations from which all parties can learn, or in a context in which everyone is a soldier who engages in combat on the battlefields of chatrooms, blogs, YouTube and other web territories through which the front line passes? I fear that it is the latter, and what is most disturbing is that it is rare for those on either side to see just how much they are the mirror image of their opponents: different beliefs and assumptions, but the same weapons and tactics. And what is most ironic is that those who engage in such battles often seek to lay claim to banners such as “Christianity”, “reason” and “morality.” But as so often happens in warfare, in the heat of battle the codes and conventions are often ignored, as are any principles that one originally went to war to uphold.