Nathan Key

This morning when I was skimming through some Amazon book reviews of Frank Viola's Pagan Christianity, I realized something interesting about myself- I naturally gravitate toward 1 Star Reviews. Perhaps it's because these reviews are often more spicy, contrary, and provocative than any of the other reviews out there, but moreover it's because readers who really hate a book, and still find time to leave feedback for the rest of us detailing why, are generally a good source of information about whether or not the book is going to resonate with me personally.

You see, single star reviewers- unless they resort to one sentence write-offs like, "I hated this book, don't buy it."- are sometimes the most detailed of all reviewers. In an attempt to debunk the content or prove why the book is a waste of time, they etch out a rebuttal based on their own research or their own opinion. And in doing so, they give a focused summary of the content with a running commentary that usually reveals the bias of the reviewer. Reading about the content of the book under the lens of a clearly stated bias is a great way to get a good understanding of the material without getting sucked into the worldview of the author.

So, as long as you read each review and ask yourself "Does reviewer sound like he's on the same page as me when it comes to style preference, orthodoxy, and interests?" These negative reviews often make a lot more sense and are a lot more useful than the 5 Star Fanboy Reviews that often make up the majority of each book's review section.

I've even come up with a little catch-phrase that I like to throw around whenever I'm looking at reviews: Skip to the Naysayers!

When I Skipped to the Naysayers, I discovered out how controversial The Shack was, and I actually decided to read it. Prior to this, I had no interest in it at all.

When I Skipped to the Naysayers, I found a wonderful a stroke of irony surrounding the critics of Jesus Wants to Save Christians (who are probably the intended audience of Rob Bell's book); they are so wrapped up in Americanized Christianity that they fail to understand the content and will also fail to be "saved" by the message.

When I Skipped to the Naysayers, I realized that the only people who hated the movie Hotel Rwanda were a racist who was disappointed with the minimal levels of carnage and violence simply because he hated Africa- and this other guy who wanted the R-Rated gore-fest so that Westerners would realize how bad it really was over there.

What it really comes down to is that single star reviews, when they are the minority view, give me a better idea of what's to love & hate about a book (or movie) before I buy it.

And besides, I love the controversy:
I love to see contrary opinions and whether or not they hold water.

Perhaps it's because we're living with the lens of modernity firmly in place, or maybe it's that we're selfish creatures more concerned with our own problems and dilemmas than anything else, but I think there's a tendency among our generation to reduce the Bible and other religious texts to mere answer guides rather than literary narrative works. We are really good at submitting queries to God about our current circumstances, but are rarely interested in sitting down and having a meal with Him, enjoying His presence and His story.

Honestly, we have a tendency to do this with a lot of our relationships. We're in them for what we get out of them- whether it be encouragement, insight, companionship, or the chance to yield some authority over another individual. And while none of these are inherently evil (we should find encouragement & companionship within relationship) if they usurp the primary position of our affections for the other person, then the relationship becomes one of utility rather than kinship and love.

To be sure, reading for utility has its place. My wife, for instance, queries her DSM-IV whenever she comes upon a situation where she's not sure how to diagnose a mental health issue (or how to treat it). She brings the symptoms and background information to the text along with the question: what should I do? And since the DSM is an excellent reference guide for mental health and mental illness, she can often find an answer to the situation at hand.

She wouldn't, however, consult Karen Kingsbury's novel A Time To Dance if she were trying to figure out how to counsel a client who was dealing with divorce.

Reading this book for the purpose of learning about divorce would be frustrating because the story gets in the way and the issues are cloudy. Instead, Beth read this novel because she wanted to get to know the characters and get wrapped up in their story. She read the novel because it's enjoyable. She read the novel because she liked the other things that Karen Kingsbury has written and trusted that this book might also be interesting and engaging.

And something happened when she finished the book.

Somehow, in the midst of story, she actually did figure out some things about divorce and human nature- things that she might not have discovered if weren't engaged with the story and the narrative that Kingsbury was telling.

Too often, we approach scripture like the DSM, instead of like a story. This isn't to say that the Bible is a myth or a fictional account, but rather that when we approach the narrative style of the Bible while pretending or assuming that it's a reference guide, we're going to be disappointed. Scripture isn't a prescriptive set of rules and regulations that answer our questions. Scripture is a story- a narrative about people interfacing with God. We have to read scripture with this lens and enjoy learning about the Story of God rather than merely the answers to the questions we have.

You'd be surprised how many things you'll discover about God and about yourself when you simply allow the story to wrap around you and forget about the questions that are burning in the back of your mind. And be ready to be amazed when the story you find yourself in makes an awful lot of those questions irrelevant and unimportant.

I'm happy to announce that after a week and a half of interviewing and creating e-learning programs I'm back to blogging again!

Thanks for keeping with me through this short hiatus.

***

I had an embarrassing thing happen to me last night.

I shot and edited a short video tour of our new apartment, uploaded it to Youtube.com, and then linked to it through tinyurl.com on Twitter and Facebook (which I typically do with my blog postings, too). Now generally, I check the tiny link before posting it by clicking it to make sure that it directs to the page I want, but last night I was in a hurry and so I simply copied it into the Be Twittered Box on my homepage. A few minutes later, when I realized that I hadn't checked the link,  I clicked on my update status and a pornographic picture popped up instead of my video.

You can imagine the terror I felt.

Twitter and Facebook are both very public forums and I had to work quickly to deleted all signs of the tinyurl I had created, all the while hoping and praying that no one else clicked on it and was directed to the same image that I had seen. An image like that can ruin a person, even if it's accidental.

So what happened?

Obviously, I'm not one to post pornography. My Youtube video link was correct when I entered it into tinyurl. All I did was copy/paste the link that tinyurl provided into Be Twittered. So how did the signals get crossed? How did pornography end up on my status update instead of the Youtube Video I intended?

Or perhaps a better question is this: Who is to blame?
As far as I'm concerned, there are really only three potential villains in this example. The first is TINYURL. Through some glitch in their system, a link they generated pointed toward content that I hadn't asked for or created. Their service promises a shortened link to the content the user intends and by providing me with a link to something other than what I  asked for, they messed up. They broke my trust- especially since the link directed users toward something offensive, rather than simply a different video or website.

The second villain is the person who posted the pornography in the first place. Tinyurl would not have been able to direct me to that picture unless that picture was online with an accessible web address. Online pornography is a blight to the internet and should never be readily available to accidentally stumble upon. Anyone who posts pornography is already a bad guy in my book, but at the very least this person should have protected their content so that only those who were specifically looking for pornography could access it. Anything less is practically criminal as far as I'm concerned.

But the third villain is me. As a content creator and distributor, it's ultimately my responsibility to check links and content for accuracy before I post them. There are hundreds of people who have clicked on my tinyurls in the past. That means that there are hundreds of victims out there who could have clicked on my status link and viewed something different than what they expected. No one should be mislead into viewing offensive material. Especially not when they are clicking on something I've posted.

** With this in mind I'd like to publicly apologize if anyone did click on the link in question. It was completely inappropriate content and I am deeply sorry if you were mislead and viewed it. **

So, for those who distribute content, let this be a lesson to you.
In order to avoid the pitfalls of bad links-

1. Always double check embedded content and links before posting.
2. Always click through a post soon after publishing just to make sure.
3. Don't brush off responsibility if you create a bad link. Apologize.

These sorts of problems don't happen very often, but when they do it's the responsibility of the distributor (in this case, me). Whoever "handled" the information last must ensure that readers aren't getting bad content. I didn't do that.

So who's to blame?
Me. I'm to blame.

"This is a New Year, this is a new day
to rise, shine, lift up your eyes"
- Charlie Hall

This year couldn't come soon enough.

In 2008:
1. My son was born
2. I got to work with some incredible people at Media Partners
3. I got to move back to Florida

But I also:
1. Lost my job
2. Got into a bunch of fights with my wife
3. Was lonely a lot

So, I'm really glad for a new year and a new day to rise, shine, and lift up my eyes. I'm glad to turn from 2008 and look into 2009 with a sense of a clean slate and a fresh perspective.