New Rules for the 21st Century – A Blog Series


When I showed up for the Fall semester of my freshman year in college, it would have been safe to say that I was a fish out of water.

Growing up in Detroit, Michigan did little to prepare me for life at Prairie View A&M University – a small school located in rural southeast Texas. When I arrived on campus, I was greeted by my two roommates – Ronnie & Rose. Both were sophomores, and had lived in Texas for much of their lives. During that first semester, Ronnie and Rose took me under their wing, and showed me how to get along in world full of new rules. Life in Prairie View, Texas was NOT like life in Detroit. They explained to me what was different, and helped me adapt my thinking to fit my new environment. They also handed out a good amount of freshman hazing (“Crab!”). Their guidance was critical in helping me thrive and succeed at PV.

When it comes to our technology-driven world, many of us can feel like awkward freshman noobs. Since technology changes so quickly, it’s easy for people to be unclear and confused by the way things work. Please understand – I’m not talking about not knowing how to use the latest app, or exhibiting proper Twitter etiquette. I’m talking about understanding the unwritten rules that define what’s important in our digital culture. It’s these rules that ultimately affect the choices people make. Understanding these new rules will make it easier to answer questions like:

– Why does it seem like everything (movies, music, information) is moving to “the Cloud”?

– Why is FOMO (fear of missing out) a thing?

– Why are presidential candidates taking debate questions from YouTube stars?

All of these questions point to cultural realities that are a result of what I call “21st Century New Rules”. These new rules are a result of the massive role that digital technology now plays in all of our lives. And just like on a college campus – the sooner you get a grasp on these unwritten rules, the better you’ll understand what’s happening around you.

So – to help us all better navigate this new terrain, I would like to welcome you to a new Bytes & Belief series – New Rules for the 21st Century

In this four part series, I will try to describe a set of new rules that Christians can use to navigate the complexities of today’s digital living. These rules are meant to make plain certain realities that are a result of cultural shifts brought about by our pervasive use of digital technology.

Now – if some of these rules seem self-evident to you, please be patient with the rest of us. Like most cultural changes, they aren’t announced. They just happen. Also keep this in mind – while it’s easy for people to follow along with trends, it’s a lot harder to understand the forces behind these them. We’ll try to address both in this series.

Join us next week for Rule #1…

Do you have your own rules for digital living? Share them in the comments!!!

What if Bull Connor had Big Data – A Future History

MLK arrest_Post 52

I thought that since we are fast approaching the Martin Luther King Jr National Holiday (in the United States), it might be worth considering a key event of  Civil Rights Movement in a modern context – particularly in light of technology’s prominent role in our lives.

Simply put – how would a pivotal event in US history, such as the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott, (led in part by Dr King) be changed in light of today’s technology?

I was also drawn to this question because the non-violent American Civil Rights movement, which was initiated by and coalesced under the Black American Christian Church, was one of the preeminent Christian movements of the 20th century. From leaders like Dr. King, Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, & Rev. Ralph Abernathy, to organizations like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the modern Civil Rights movement simply would not have happened without the Black Christian Church.

If we want a recent example of the followers of Christ successfully provoking large-scale societal change, this is a good place to start.

Rosa Parks, who was chosen by boycott leaders to be the test case to challenge Montgomery’s system of racial segregation, was selected because of her “good standing in the community”. This was important because if, after being arrested, Mrs. Parks’ reputation could in any way be maligned, then her character would become the issue, and any challenge to Montgomery’s oppressive and unconstitutional laws would be drowned out.

In today’s world, any investigation of Mrs. Parks’ character would largely consist of her online activity. Every Facebook post, tweet, and Instagram picture would be scrutinized. Much of her digital behavior – the sites she visits, the apps on her phone, even her movements (thanks to her mobile phone metadata) would be scrutinized by the Montgomery Police Department as soon as she was arrested. If one post, tweet, or picture could be bent or twisted to make Rosa Parks’ character an issue, then the boycott would successfully be stymied. In today’s world, the bar for “good standing in the community” can be raised to a height few are capable of clearing.

From the start of the bus boycott on December 1, 1955, the black churches in Montgomery organized much of the logistics necessary to keep it going. This included things like managing a network of organized car pooling for thousands of participants, coordinating news updates to Montgomery’s black community, and accepting donations – which poured in from black churches across the country. All of these tasks would be made easier by today’s tech. Perhaps the Montgomery Improvement Association would develop a smartphone app, allowing participants to get the latest updates on the boycott, set-up ride sharing groups, and even enlist the support of others. Donations from other across the globe could be received through donations sent via text message.

Once the boycott was underway, its participants met swift, organized resistance from many Southern whites. The ranks of the pro-segregationist White Citizens Council began to grow as the Montgomery Bus Boycott wore on. The homes of Dr. King and Ralph Abernathy were firebombed, in addition to four black churches. Insurance companies canceled the insurance policies of black car owners who were believed to be giving rides to boycotters. Boycott participants were repeatedly attacked and beaten by local whites opposed to their cause. At the same time, J. Edgar Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, began his infamous surveillance of Dr. King, in order to find information that might discredit him and destroy the Movement.

Just as technology would increase the effectiveness of those supporting our hypothetical, 21st century bus boycott, it would also increase the effectiveness of those opposing it. The use of technology would make the efforts of white citizens and government officials substantially more efficient. White citizens could use smartphones to take pictures of people participating in car pools as they drove by, making them known to police and other protestors. Videos of boycott participants being beaten would be anonymously uploaded to YouTube – an effort to terrorize the black community into giving up. Money and words of support would flow into Montgomery’s White Citizens’ Council, sent from people across the world who supported the principles of white supremacy and segregation.

More importantly, those in local and federal government, who either opposed the idea of desegregation or just wanted to maintain the status quo, would be in particularly good position to take advantage of technology to advance their position. Phone records and metadata would quickly identify the leaders of the boycott and provide real-time updates of their whereabouts. Agreements with Internet Service Providers and mobile phone careers would give government officials, from J. Edgar Hoover all the way down to T.E. “Bull” Connor (the brutal commissioner in nearby Birmingham, AL),  direct insight into all communications passing between the leaders organizing the boycott.

Unlike the somewhat offsetting advantages that technology would offer both the boycott organizers and the White Citizens Council, the information advantage that government officials would have would be insurmountable.

In fact, it is fair to say that the information advantage government officials would have – thanks to today’s technology – would have given them the ability to shut down the Montgomery Bus Boycott in its earliest stages.

As a result, one of the biggest Christian movements in history would have never taken place.

So – what does this mean to us?

The quality of our freedom can only be judged by our ability to dissent.

Loud, obnoxious, nagging, persistent dissent…

True dissent – the kind that pricks the conscience, changes minds, and transforms society – must be all of these things. When viewed through the eyes of the Pharisees and the occupying Roman authorities, Christ and the early Christian Church were all those things. It was this kind of dissent that Martin Luther King Jr and the leaders of the non-violent Civil Rights movement attempted to emulate. As followers of Christ, we too should adopt this posture.

If Christians hold fast to the priorities Jesus spells out in the Sermon on the Mount, then the things we value should in many ways be contrary to those who don’t follow Jesus (think “salt of the Earth”). In order to advance the cause of Christ, we will need to speak out in support of our beliefs. This should lead us to be involved in some kind of dissent – taking a position that is supported by God’s Word, but is contrary to public opinion.

Therefore, followers of Christ must always protect our ability (and the ability of others) to freely protest, without interference from the majority or those in positions of power. Not for our own sakes, but for the sake of Christ.

The question we must all ask ourselves is this – do our digital tools still allow us to dissent in a meaningful way?

If we, like Dr King, are called to take to action in support of a position that is justified by Christ but is unpopular, will technology help or hinder our efforts?

Share your thoughts in the Comments!