A recent Gallup Poll about Religiosity and Perceived Intolerance of Gays and Lesbians really got me thinking, especially in terms of online communities and the content we serve up daily on our blogs.
I shall call this particular mindfood “Religioblogosity: How “Religious” is Your Blog Content?” More thoughts after the jump:
Apparently from the study:
Gallup Polls conducted in 129 countries between 2006 and 2008 reveal that in many countries where high percentages of people report that religion is important in their daily lives, people are also highly likely to report that the place where they live is not a good place for gays and lesbians to live.
If this is true, by a long-shot digital application, is it possible that blogs that are “highly” religious in their content is less likely a place for people who are outside the faith to congregate and participate?
Perhaps. I think it makes sense.
There are a number of blogs that I would consider hyper-religious in their content publication and I’m fairly certain that the lost don’t spend too much time there, if they ever get there in the first place.
But I’m also aware of a number of blogs that are not necessarily hyper but fairly explicit in their Christian-stint that do, in fact, attract the lost.
What do you think? Where do you fall on the scale in terms of your Religioblogosity? Does the research even make sense in the online context? Is this how it should be?
I would hope that the blogs that I personally contribute to are just as useful to those within the walls of our faith as without.
[Image from Bukanza]
Amanda_Sims says
I think this is true and can be the same even for micro-blogging. When every single tweet from a person is a Bible verse or a link to a worship song, even *I* get turned off after a while.
Now, after having said that, I 'm going to go take a look at my own blog and try to determine if it's too "religious".
Thanks for the brain food.
Adam_S says
All comes down to purpose then doesn't it.
Chris Downs says
I don't know, it provokes the question of how much concern you should place on this if your blog is specifically tailored for those inside the faith. If your blog is aimed for Christians and talking about their concerns and some of the deeper theological points, should you be overly concerned with the backlash of those outside of the faith? Tough line to draw.
Jim says
i've been strongly considering the 2 blogs because i have most of my readership in a certain city that i might live close to. and i could make an accurate guess that over half are not Christians.So,with that, i will now be blogging as well at eternaltruthworldwide.com
love the graphs,very helpful.sat in on a webcast w/chris brogan and @bostonmike and heard some crazy #'s posted for twitter and fb…crazy talk…
Rombo says
Hi, interesting question that you pose about whether non-Christians are inclined to visit blogs by Christians, whether overt in their faith message or not.
I just wanted to comment about language and why it matters in these instances: my experience is that non-Christians don't generally like to be assigned titles such as nonbelievers (because many of them actually believe that they believe just that they don't believe what you believe) or the term you use in this post "the lost" because, well, because.
In my judgment, that's a real problem we Christians have in engaging with nonChristians via Web 2.0. The language barrier.
(But then again, who am I to speak, really: I sprinkle my blog with Christian here, Christian there, as it strikes my fancy, but mostly, I just, well, am.)
Daniel_Berman says
You raise valid points, on both sides of the equation. Question, do you believe its possible to have a "religious" conversation that uses no Christianeese? Question two if we managed to do such, what would a gospel presentation look like?
Rombo says
Yes, I do believe it's possible to have a faith conversation that uses no Christianese, one in which we have authentic conversations about our faith as a very particular life orientation. I think those are the kinds of conversations people yearn for, conversations where we speak to them, not at them. Not so much that we shrink from the expression of our faith, but we share the meaning of faith in our lives and how it's impacted us and then we engage honestly and openly with their questions, their unbelief, and their challenges. And once in a while, we might even allow ourselves to concede and "I don't know," or "I struggle with that too."
For the most part, I really believe that whereas our beliefs and how they play out in our lives should be clear to see(read if you please), mostly, we need to just be our often flawed Christian selves, warts and all, because people do respond to genuineness, this I've seen.
(forgive the long response)
Bill says
I think I would agree with Adam and Chris, doesn't it come down to who you're writing for? Isn't it that simple? Is it that wrong to use different language depending on the audience. As a programmer, I'm not going to describe programming the same way to a non-programmer as I would someone who programs. The terms I would use would be totally different. So I guess, how does this differ when discussing faith?
Daniel Berman says
I think you are absolutely correct. Proper authentic communication does not depend on the use of the correct language as much as the right words spoken at the right time, to convey truth to a person in the situation they are at in life.