The more connected, the dumber?

July 21, 2010

Silva Culture, Foundations, relationships Leave a comment

I make it a habit to listen to a weekly podcast called the Whitehorse Inn.  This year’s theme has been “recovering Scripture,” or to put it another way, they are systematically dealing with biases in the church and the culture that keep us from seeing the beauty and usefulness of the Bible.

A recent podcast is called “Distracting Ourselves to Death.”  Host Michael Horton is interviewing college professor T. David Gordon.  Dr. Gordon has written a number of books like “Why Johnny Can’t Preach” or “Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns” (great books that play on the theme of the bestseller “Why Johnny Can’t Read” by Rudolph Flesch).  These books take the unfortunately ubiquitous church phenomena of poor preaching and poorer worship and unpack its source material.

This particular podcast regarded distractions.  Specifically the same theme about which author Nicholas Carr wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in 2008 in his article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” We are distracted, it seems, by more than simply our commitments to ease, comfort and the satisfaction of the senses: our thinking may be in the process of being remade in the image of our connectedness.

Years ago, I exhorted a group of young single people to fight against the temptation to live with mediated communication.  In other words, that they would not be satisfied with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.  Instead, they’d want to be personal.  In this podcast, Dr. Gordon mentions that we have “plastic neurology.”  He said something like we make tools and then they make us.  He has observed in his college classroom that while students bring in laptops ostensibly to take notes, they are in fact using them to surf the web, send email or chat.  Nevermind, says Dr. Gordon.  What really bothers him is his theory that the students would not be able to function without all of this.  That if he told them to check their computers at the door, there would be a mutiny.

(Where would you be without your text plan?  What about your Facebook page?  How about internet connectivity?)

Plastic neurology is our God-given neurological malleability.  Check this quote from Mr. Carr’s article:

The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information [i.e., the internet] are many and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded.  “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired‘s Clive Thompson has written, “can be an enormous boon to thinking.”  But that boon comes at a price.  As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information.  They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought.  And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplations.  My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles.

We come close to the line of responsibility in all of this.  Who exactly is responsible for our behavior?  We are – we do what we want to do all the time.  This is the clear conclusion of the Bible.  Yet, as we engage in what we love and welcome and use in technology, that medium may be exerting an influence back on us.  The effect of which makes other things harder.  I think we are in trouble in two areas: thinking and relating.

First, thinking.  More able writers can and have unpacked this concept of distractedness or plasticity (The Shallows, RAPT are book titles; www.roughtype.com is Nicholas Carr’s blog and there are titles that can be found there).  Consider this ancedotally: do you find yourself willing and able to wade through old writers, Puritans or poetry, perhaps?  In reading, do you bore quickly and find you need to get up or that you need to do something else?  Can you sit down with a passage of Scripture and study it: word study, history, grammar and connections to other books?  Must you always have music on?

Consider also recent political actions: health care, financial reform, or bail-outs.  Did you remember hearing that those bills were 1000′s of pages long and our representatives didn’t even read them?  (They should’ve; check this: Preventive Care Mandate.)  What was astounding to me was that this was never an issue with the majority of people.  None of us would blindly sign some document that had serious and grave implications on our family’s lives, would we?  But they did.  Maybe their brains are so effected that they can’t read, but did the populace give them a pass thinking, “Man, who has time to read all of that anyway?”

Biblical Christianity is a thinking religion.  Of course, it is a whole-person religion, but not before it presents to us truth claims that must be considered.  If we have lost our ability to think through things, then we are going to see our churches move more and more away from biblical Christianity.  Our people will move away from what it means to be people of grace and truth.

Second, relating.  Relationships take time and effort.  Facebook and its annoying clones and predecessors are not facilitating social connectedness.  That used to mean (rightly) time together.  Voices heard, expressions seen and analyzed, misstatements challenged, rebukes and forgiveness exchanged.  Not anymore.  Now, we believe it is adequate to rail against someone slanderously via an email.  Google might be making us dumber but it has certainly made us more cowardly.  The medium of pop-ups, broadband, multiple-tabs, and chat has reshaped our relationships so that we want them just like those other things: exciting, fast-paced, multiples, uncommitted and surface.

Who can really solve this by turning things off, you know?  That will hardly do.  Instead, at some point, the church will have to recognize we have discovered a new country with new joys and new sins.

When Language Becomes Worthless

August 6, 2009

Silva Culture, relationships , , , , , , 1 Comment

I’ve observed in the last few years a shift in our communication.  Now, I’m not so sure it’s only been in the last few years (others would probably tell me it’s been longer) but I have certainly noticed it as it has invaded my circles.

Worthless language takes many forms.  I have observed that people say things that don’t actually say much at all.  In other words, if I have to ask you what you mean several times – over one statement – it is likely that what you said either was profoundly unclear or unintelligible. Now, of course the third option could be that I’m clueless (that’s always an option).  Let’s assume that I’m not.  (We have to assume something…)

Worthless language can be crude and curse-filled.  In that case, that language, while descriptive, is usually not helpful in advancing dialogue.

What I’m talking about in terms of useless language is user-defined language.  In other words, using words whose meaning is ultimately subjective or user-defined: it means what I say it means.

This language, as far as I’ve observed, is most prevalent when words that were previously used to describe physical ailments, and were at one time metaphorically used to describe our inner existence, crossed over into literal, inner descriptors.

Huh?

Here’s a popular one: “I’m hurt.”  What the speaker means is not something physical and measurable (like the yellow jacket stings I received yesterday) but some kind of inner experience that only the speaker knows about.

“I’m wounded”

“You’re unsafe”

“This relationship is unhealthy”

“That’s abuse”

“You hurt my feelings”

Each of these phrases depicts an inner, subjective experience that defies external definition.  In other words, there’s no real way to test, measure, or gage what the speaker really means.  And we all like it that way.

A problem with user-defined language is that once it is spoken, its meaning is both a secret and controlled by the user.  I have to figure out what you mean and if I don’t I can’t ever do anything to please you.  Maybe vindictive speakers like it that way; most probably don’t realize what’s happening.  But for the hearer, it is a kind of verbal servitude – you own me because you’ve used words that I’ve heard before but whose meaning you’ve defined.

I’m both stuck and beholden.

It didn’t use to be this way.  Formerly, language, while usable in different arenas had specific functions.  Now, those meanings have all been conflated – combined, condensed, melted-together.  And we’re all stuck.  If I’m hurt or you’re unhealthy, we’re slaves to each other until we figure out what the blazes that all means.

I have a better idea.  How about we don’t give a “tinker’s rip” about each others language and we agree instead on a common tongue.  When we talk about our inner experiences – what we think and value and believe – why don’t we adopt a time tested vocabulary and start from there?

The Bible.  The Bible provides for us both descriptive and prescriptive words.  It both describes and explains our inner experiences.  If, for example,  I experience a hardship at your hands, I can tell you that:

“I believe that your words were full of wrath and that you sinned against me” (see Colossians 3:8).

“You were slandering me to my friend and you sinned against me” (see same verse)

“You lied with your words and you sinned against me” (see Colossians 3:9)

“Your speech was obscene and it was offensive; you sinned against me” (see Colossians 3:8)

“Your words were harsh and unloving; you didn’t have my best interests in mind” (see Ephesians 4:15 and Philippians 2:4)

You see, when we use an external, neutral language that both describes and prescribes, things can happen. I can be held accountable and you can get some justice and mercy.  Do we not see that our culture’s current use of formerly physical language is ultimately unhelpful?  Throwing around terms like “abuse” and “safe” and “health” just don’t get us anywhere with each other.  (We’ve seen this for years in the ambiguity of pro-abortion argumentation standing on phrases like the “health of the mother” and then filling into “health” whatever ones wants.)

If you tell me that I’m not “safe” I have no idea what to do except what you tell me.  But, what if what you are telling me to do to be “safe” is contrary to the law of God?  In other words, what if you tell me that I must “stay away so that you can be safe” when in fact the Bible says that I must draw near to reconcile?  What do we do then?

When it comes to the language of blessing and the language of conflict, we cannot let ourselves devolve into subjective, user-defined, worthless speech.  Instead, we must humble ourselves and use the language of Another.  Then we will be able to assign a universal meaning and maybe we can reconcile.

You won’t like this: K-I-S-S-I-N-G

July 6, 2009

Silva Bible, Fidelity, Foundations, Singles, relationships , , , Leave a comment

I am doing some writing for a curriculum for young adults who are thinking about marriage.  Naturally (for me) K-I-S-S-I-N-G came up!  And I found a very interesting quote:

Sexuality touches every area of human life; even something as simple as a kiss can have social consequences (after The Kiss, you go from being the girl next door to being his girlfriend) and emotional consequences (you hadn’t realized you like him that way until then).

Kisses can play on our psychological and spiritual registers.  But sexuality, even mere kissing, is also, unavoidably, bodily.  After all, we define a kiss by body parts: a kiss happens when lips meet a cheek or a hand or when two set of lips rub against each other.  Kissing can make our bodies tingle.  And kisses can be slobbery; like other sexual deeds, they are messy in their embodiment.

Real Sex, Lauren Winner, page 33.

I’d recommend the book, but not K-I-S-S-I-N-G, until it’s time.

Why are you fighting with each other?

June 14, 2009

Silva Bible, Culture, Family, Life, Singles, relationships , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

When you stop to think about the reasons people get mad at each other, what do you find?  Something has been violated to be sure, but what?  What about anger?  There is none who avoid anger – not even Jesus did.  Of course His anger wasn’t unrighteous but what made it righteous over against unrighteous?  (BTW, an excellent book on anger is Robert Jones’ book “Uprooting Anger: Biblical Help for a Common Problem“.) Or, given my last post with the voice-over from John Piper, what about politics?  How do people of great conviction navigate in that realm?  Are we supposed to believe that it is ONLY a dirty profession with callous and self-serving people?  I’d hardly call a man like Henry Hyde a self-serving dirtbag!  They’re out there to be sure, but ALL of them?  I think not.

So, folks getting mad at each other?  Why?  Or angry, why?  Or politics, why? I’ve been thinking  about this lately as I consider my parenting: I’ve got a pile of kids and a pile of mess.  Verbal sparring is a reality but why?  I think part of our problem is that we are actively engaging people not on the basis of whether something is right or wrong (in the objective and biblical sense) but right or wrong as I define it.  We define right and wrong in one of two ways only: internally (I write the rules) or externally (someone else writes them).

I’ve watched VERY young children act out in amazingly sophisticated ways.  Any parent will tell you that little Johnny and Susie weren’t taught to say “no,” they just do it.  That grows and blooms into a worldview where we easily define what is right and wrong and that’s what we pursue in relationships.  We hold two rulebooks in our hands all the time: mine and God’s.  Think of a balance: my rulebook on the left, God’s on the right.  If we hold these two rulebooks equally, then if you violate God’s rule or mine, the consequences (as I meet them out) are the same.  Other options include mine over God’s (my response to your violation: harshness, coarse language, grumpy, silent treatment…you get the idea); God’s over mine (my response to your violation: gentleness, firmness, restoration-aimed…you see the difference?).

Back to the balance: in my left hand, is my rule book. My “rule book” is life according to me.  It is how you should act.  It doesn’t usually include how I should act, just you.  (Maybe a chapter in there about me but many in there about you.)  They include things like: don’t criticize me unless I ask you to; don’t instruct me unless I ask you; don’t fail to call me back when I call you; don’t send me texts; vote R–; don’t drink PBR…you get the idea.

When you violate one of my rules, what have you done?  Have you sinned against me?  No.  You’ve violated a preference; you’ve acted in a way that I’d rather you didn’t.  In the end, who cares – I need to get over it (in the church we call this “Christian Freedom”).  When it concerns my rulebook, I can’t compel you to act as I would want you to.  Here’s the catch: I STILL try because at the heart of it all I think you SHOULD obey my rules just as you would obey God’s.  As I pursue my rules in your life if you fail to obey, we fight. All of this is wrong, of course.  You would be right to tell me to pound sand as I ask you to obey my rules.

Now, in my right hand I hold God’s rules as we read them in the Bible.  If you violate one of them, I’d be right to confront you, be angry, etc.  God gives His people the right to be in each other’s lives with His rulebook.  If you lied to me, I would be right to warn you that’s a sin against me: you would’ve violated a rule that God clearly gives in the Bible to govern our conduct (Ephesians 4:15).  If, however, you told me truth in the “wrong place” (my rule) then I’d have no right to get chapped at you.  How many spouses (men especially) get ticked because the other confronts in a place they’d rather not have to deal with it?  Man, do I hear that a lot (even lived through that one)!

Let’s review:

Rulebook #1 (mine) = preferences.

Rulebook #2 (God’s) = sin.

If you find yourself in a sparring match you would be well served to ask if you are holding up your end of the fight because someone has violated one of your precious preferences.  If so, get over it and yourself.  Put down your weapon and realize that the other person is no more obligated to obey your preferences than you are to obey his.

If we were more inclined to hold to the Word of God in the Bible and ask people to hold to that as well and that only, we would fight less.  Ask someone close to you to help you with your list of preferences that drive them crazy – I’m sure it won’t take long.

What does it mean…to be thoughtful?

May 6, 2009

Silva Bible, Life, Mom, relationships , , , , 2 Comments

Have you ever spoken with someone who just doesn’t think?  Have you ever watched someone who just wasn’t thinking about what they were doing?  It is a very strange phenomenon because it cannot be that people actually aren’t thinking.  Especially given what the Bible says in places like the Gospel of Mark, chapter 7, verses 14-23.  Clearly we are always thinking.

Still, I interact with people who are often best described as non-thinking people.  I suppose to be clear their thinking just lacks.  It is not always clear what it lacks, but people’s difficulties (my own difficulties) come because thinking lacks.  Let’s establish some “thoughtless categories.”

Maybe it lacked depth -and I missed the obvious (or almost obvious).

Maybe it was lazy - and I was thoughtless about a significant event in someone’s life.

Maybe it was weak and wimpy – life is hard and all I could think about was its hardness.

Maybe it was wrongly founded – and I advised someone to do something wrong.

Maybe it was poorly motivated – and I did or said something that was clearly selfish.

What does it mean to be thoughtful?  Maybe you wonder what is the point of asking the question?  (See, your thinking lacks.)  Let’s take an easy one: Mother’s Day.  Do you know when it is?  (Hint: it’s quickly approaching.)  All of you have mothers – what does it mean to be thoughtful about Mother’s Day?

1. The Bible tells us to honor our parents.  You can’t just do nothing.

Thoughtless category: lazy.

2. You can’t just focus on the ways that you wish your Mom did it differently.  Why would you focus on that, anyway?  So that you don’t make the same “mistakes”?  Maybe.  Maybe you want to think about how she should’ve done it differently so that you can talk yourself out of honoring her.

Thoughtless category: poorly motivated.

3.  Don’t wish your Mom a happy Mother’s Day because you think she can’t live without you.

Thoughtless category: lacking depth (gimme a break)

4.  If your Mom’s life is hard and you don’t wish her a happy Mother’s Day because you think you’re doing her a favor (maybe you’re the reason her life is hard), that’s stupid.

Thoughtless category: wrongly founded.

5.  You don’t honor her because your life is hard.  It could be hard – life is hard – but your isolation from your Mom won’t make your life easier.

Thoughtless category: weak and wimpy.

What to do, then?

Call her (don’t Facebook her, Tweet her, email her or text her) – CALL.

Thank her

Wish her a happy Mother’s Day

Pray for her

Send her flowers (if you can afford it); pick some flowers from somebody’s yard or the roadside (if you can’t); you should probably ask your neighbor, first.  If he says, “no”, categorize his thoughtless behavior: poorly motivated.

Tell her you’re sorry for making her life hard (if that’s true)

There are some mothers out there who likely make these things hard for you to do.  I’m sorry about that; it happens.  I come back to only one thing and ask you to press on: the Bible tells us to honor our parents.  It doesn’t tell us to do so when they’ve met some criteria that we establish; just to do it.  So, do it.

Older Entries