I have watched with interest what has been described as a “flame war” going on god blogs around the traps. Bene Diction has a good summary of the various relevant posts.

I am not going to comment on that particular discussion. The aspect of the discussion which interests me is a side issue. The “war” began when Pieter Friedrich posted a fairly controversial statement regarding his views about muslims and homosexuals. He later removed it, stating that it was intended as a parody, although prompted by his actual beliefs about the matter. Pieter happens to be 17 years old.

In the midst of a maelstrom of argument and abuse over the particular issue raised, various people have pointed to the fact that Pieter is a young man, and his viewpoints should be considered in light of his youth. The fact that he is young has even been used to completely undermine his opinion and statements and as a basis for allowing them little weight. In the context of comment wars where there have been some pretty ugly things said, this in particular worries me.

In the comment section at Bene’s site, I said:

From what little I have read, it doesn’t appear that Pieter would want us to take his youth into account, and perhaps might find these comments condescending (I think I would, in Pieter’s position).

I think that there are two things at play here. The first is the idea that because Pieter is a young man, it is especially important that discussions don’t degenerate into abuse. Let’s call this issue number one. I agree that youth is a factor which can make harsh comments particularly damaging. However, there are many other factors, and many other reasons why we should in all conversations be treating each other with respect and grace. This is not something that should be reserved for young people, nor is it something which should be expected only from “mature” people.

So, while I don’t disagree with issue number one, I think it skews the issue by suggesting that we should be nice in conversations with young people, when in reality we should be setting this expectation across the board and in all circumstances.

I react to this because that I think that people expressing concern for issue number one often create an impression or provide support for the ideas underpinning issue number two. Issue number two is the idea that Pieter’s view should be valued less because of his youth. This can be expressed in a number of ways - that he may change his mind in the future, that he has a limited breadth of life experience to draw on, that he is still in the process of receiving his education etc etc etc. And it may be expressed in the seemingly sensitive statement that we should make allowances for his youth.

I don’t like issue number two. I think we in society and in the church do it all the time, and I think it is incredibly damaging. We talk of how young people are the “church of tomorrow”, implying that they are not the church of today.

We give testimonies saying “When I reflect on it, the faith that I had as a teenager was very simplistic and not a real faith at all”. Well yes, if I had the same faith now that I had when I was eight, it would probably be simplistic. But it doesn’t mean it was simplistic for me as an eight-year-old, nor does it mean that it was less valuable or worthy than my current faith. It is unfair to judge the faith of your youth against the standards of your present. And it leads us to talk about people “maturing” in their faith, as if the faith and belief system of a child or young person is less valuable.

We sit on boards and committees which wonder why young people aren’t interested in taking on positions of leadership whilst simultaneously suggesting that positions of leadership need a wealth of “experience” (even when there is no reason why this should be the case).

In one case I know of, the constitutional procedures of church membership and eligibility for leadership combined to ensure that an average new attender had to be attending church regularly for 4 years before they could aspire to leadership, when most of the young people in the church were attending university and likely to move on somewhere else to begin their career within 3 years.

In one organisation, I suggested some changes to an event to make it more open to people under 50 and received the response “kids don’t like business meetings - there is nothing that you can do about that” (my response - well the “kids” seem to have a higher level of discernment that the people that do attend).

If Pieter were a woman and someone suggested that his views were not valid because he was a female, there would be an uproar. But in one comment string I read, he was repeatedly dismissed as a “child” and nobody cared. Since when is “child” a pejorative term? Have we forgotten that Jesus held up a child as the example of how we should believe?

The blogosphere is the ultimate egalitarian society. We are not bound by education, training, age, attractiveness, wealth, gender or any of the other indicators traditionally used to control who is entitled to express an opinion with authority. One of the ways that we can create an atmosphere of respect and grace (to serve the interests of issue one) is to respond to all people equally and value all opinions equally, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.

Disclaimer

I want to take care to point out that this is not directed at any particular bloggers who have engaged in this discussion. This is a soap-box of mine and this discussion has just sparked it off. In fact, if you follow the links, you will see many people who are very skilled at responding to people that they disagree with.

And, for the record, I disagree with Pieter’s point of view, and I would no matter what his age.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 25th, 2003 at 3:23 pm by dan and is filed under challenges for the church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.