The Internet is not going to go away. The thought might seem odd. The point though is that smartphones, laptops and tablets have changed ecclesias and individuals because of the quick and easy access they afford to ‘knowledge’. The era in which knowledge in the community might be controlled and disseminated through magazines and speakers is over and has been for about fifteen years. There is now a much bigger third voice on the Internet and it is not just made up of brethren and sisters; it is comprised of any source of knowledge from any Christian church and includes their professional scholars.
Anyone can directly access the Internet during meetings and at home to get information and opinions, but it would be premature at this point to sound a note of caution. Our first point is that this access isn’t necessary in order to be a Christian but it is ubiquitous. It isn’t necessary because it is possible to conduct Bible study/reading intertextually with nothing more than a concordance and a lexicon. In fact, the best Christadelphian writing is grounded in this method. (The worst talks have been by brethren copying American TV evangelists, and the worst writing has followed suit and been ‘dumbed-down’.)
Anyone trained in biblical scholarship will readily recognise a difference of method and results between the best Christadelphian studies of the past and conventional scholarship. This difference arises from a belief in inspiration (i.e. that the Bible is the Word of God and should be treated with respect) and the outworking of that belief in a harmonic, synchronic and intertextual way of handling the Bible. For example, in scholarship you never hear things like, ‘The Spirit through Paul says…’, because their frame of reference is always to approach the text on an exclusively human level. Thus, the only contribution that the community could make to scholarship (if it wanted to make any) would be its original, synchronic, intertextual exegesis, which is largely the product of its doctrine. (Of course, its doctrine is largely the product of its exegesis – it has been a two-way street.)
This contribution isn’t happening because the Christadelphian presence on the Internet is almost exclusively preaching. A new generation have an opportunity to address this imbalance. The danger here is that the new generation will just swallow scholarship uncritically and follow the humanism of the churches. (I see evidence of this happening online because the pendulum usually swings too far in one direction.)
The other danger is that the older generation will try and train-up the new generation in their own ‘image’. This image has been an exclusive emphasis on the simple, the devotional, and the homiletical gospel. (I see this reinforcement happening through the training and patronage of certain kinds of speakers.) Either the new generation will see both dangers for what they are and they will go forward and renew the community, returning it to its intertextual pioneer roots, pioneers that were far more aware of the scholarship of their own day than the speakers and writers of recent times; or they will follow the older generation and allow themselves to be moulded in their image.
In the UK, there is concern about decline in community numbers, an ageing demographic and reduced numbers being baptised and staying after baptism. No doubt the reasons for this are complex. However, one major reason we see for the decline has been the exclusive emphasis on the simple, the devotional, and the homiletical gospel that has taken place over recent decades. This has resulted in a diminution in the consciousness of our distinctive identity and hence a reduction in the numbers being baptised and staying. The way to arrest the decline is to return to the emphasis of rigorous doctrine and study.
10 Years of the Christadelphian eJournal of Biblical Interpretation