Category: Culture

The more connected, the dumber?

Silva

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.

An Open Letter To All Who Might Win in November’s Elections

Silva

Dear Public Servant,

You have already been long embarked on a mission to bring a political agenda to the municipal, state or national stage.  This path seems sometimes long and always arduous.  As a political student, spectator and sometimes participant (as a voter), I thank and commend you for choosing this area of service.  Having served in this nation’s military for years, I recognize the presence of the costs in many areas of your life.  Thank you.  Do not grow weary in this endeavor – see it through.

If you are headed into the November general elections, it seems that God, who rules both the realms of the Church and the State, may prosper your path and place you into a position of influence.  That is exciting!  As you continue your work toward that end, I wanted to write you; even to begin a conversation with you.

First, it is not necessary for you to agree with me that God rules both realms or that He is the one who may grant you success: this is what I believe (and, as a local talk show radio host says, “you’re welcome to it”).  We have for too long judged someone by virtue of his adherence to a religious manifesto (Christian or Secular).  The Founding Fathers saw something different.  Theirs was a commitment to found a country in part for religious freedom.  That really means something, namely, folks should be free to follow the dictates of their conscience.  (At what point did we lose this view?)  Surely their expectation was that men and women of principle (including religious principle) would bring those into governance.  But not so that they could pursue a Christian or Secular nation (any more than a French nation, for example).

It seems to a large degree our public servants have lost their nerve.  Is it because they have navigated away from principles that lead to good government?  “Principles?  Like what?”  Some would say biblical principles; others secular ones.  Something else.

How is it that our nation has prospered over this 200 years with such a varying degree of religious belief and practice? Has it been by force of arms that one group prevailed over another?

How can men and women of legitimate and real differences govern and be governed together?

This is one of those questions that has never been more important.  Scads of young people and other disaffected voters acted in 2008 to usher into political power those who were different than the status quo.  Maybe it was the Democratic Party platform that persuaded these voters; maybe not.  In fact, “hope” and “change” and whatever people annexed to those concepts is what won the day.

This is part of the reason for my letter to you: it is likely that God has prospered your path towards elected office irrespective of your religious beliefs.  That is, in spite of them rather than because of them. This is important for you to consider.  Long many have held that we need more Christians (or non-Christians) in public office simply because the broader goal of politics must surely be a Christian America (or Secular America).  I urge you to search the Bible and you will see that God has no such goal as a Christian or Secular America.  No.  His goals are far different when we start to consider what He has revealed to us in the Bible.  Nor must this encourage those of you who think that secularism should reign.  Neither is true.

I asked earlier how we have succeeded in forging out a national history that has involved men and women of almost every political stripe?  How are we to govern and be governed in our climate of uber-partisanship?

It is not wrong to answer that question by exploring what the founders initially saw as the pathway to governing.  Do we think that we alone live in a time of discord?  Let’s not be so arrogant as to think that our fathers wouldn’t (or didn’t) understand precisely the pressures to govern a disparate and independent people.  Surely, at the headwaters of our founding there were more factions than today!

So, secondly, the Declaration of Independence speaks of several concepts that can guide us and, I hope, you as well.  These are summed as the “laws of nature.”  Among them: distinction-making, decency, self-evident truth, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, justice, safety, prudence, definitions of evil and patience.  Each of these concepts drawn from the laws of nature were enshrined in our national origins.

Distinction-making.  You ask, “Where is that in the Declaration?”  It is the Declaration.  This document (as every document like it) is where distinction-making either takes place or is recorded.  The colonists categorize in the Declaration the ways in which the Crown acted tyrannically.  These included such things as making laws that were too difficult to obey, calling convocations in locations that made attendance impossible, quartering standing Army troops in peace, etc.  Experiences and burdens that all could agree where not necessary or right.  We wrongly fear distinction-making today.  We eschew calling nations to account for harboring terrorists, for calling out greedy capitalists, for dressing down corrupt government officials or even for equal treatment.  Yet, we cannot govern if we fear making distinctions.  For these things must be done.

Decency.  Turn on the TV and seek examples of decency; ask congressional staffers about examples of decency.  Indecency is rampant – even having touched the White House in years past.  Decency, according to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is that which is “morally praiseworthy.”  We go astray if we ask “whose morals?”  (We continue to prove my first point.)  Language, dress, decorum and vocations that advance honor to all men are decent.  That means prostitution, crime, corruption, immodesty, pornography, violence and vulgarity are not honorable and should be restricted by law.  For whom do these things produce decency?

Self-evident truth.  Christianity is not self-evident, nor is any other religious system.  What is?  “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  We could’ve handled this one at the top of the list: there are truth principles accessible to all of us at all times that don’t reside in our religious books.  One teacher talked about being “center-thinking” people rather than “fringe-thinking” people.  In other words, when we all consider mainly that which we agree (the center) rather than our disagreements (the fringe) we would see that there is more common ground than uncommon ground.  This list of principles in the Declaration enumerate many of these truths.  Of course, this begs us to consider what is in our “center,”  doesn’t it?

Life.  Who is against life?  To be against it is either to be dead or for death.  Old and young, native and immigrant, male and female: we didn’t earn life, it was a gift to us.  We don’t own it and can’t arbitrarily take it, either.  For example, if we turned on the television and heard a news announcer speak of 50 million dead, would we think, “oh well”?  No!  We’d be right to be outraged: we’d ask “where?” “when?” and “who?”  Fifty million dead is the number of children aborted in our country since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  Scores of thousands are the number of those abandoned mothers with children.  What about those elderly among us who waste away in nursing homes – having given their lives to the raising of families and this nation, do we now let them painfully pass away into the dark of night?  To be pro-life should take many forms.

Liberty.  If we were to take a poll of all ages of all people and ask, “Would you want to be someone’s slave?”  I imagine the answers would be overwhelmingly “no.”  To be free is hard wired into us.  We often pit freedom against security as if we have to choose.  (It stands to be tested whether a nation that governs from the limited center doesn’t also provide the needed safety.)  How often do we harbor resentment and outrage when our liberty and freedom find limits?  Of course, just as it makes sense to people not to be slaves, it also makes sense to consider appropriate limitations on freedom (see below).  “Stop” signs are limitations that we can all agree on, right?  That we all  believe freedom and liberty is essential is without dispute.

The pursuit of happiness.  Do we really not know what this means?  We all pursue happiness.  No one would agree that happiness comes from the structured and intentional advantage of one group and the disadvantage of another.  Group A might be happy but Group B wouldn’t be.  How do we avoid policies that do this?  The only way is to minimize policies.  Limited governance isn’t a Republican idea, it is a common sense and natural one.  With each policy comes unintended consequences that inevitably serve to disadvantage someone.  Public servants must be content with the natural inclinations of the governed: some will zealously pursue some things (to their happiness) while others are content with much less (to their happiness). With such variance in people’s inclinations, how can government aim at anything like fairness or equal opportunity?  Are we so afraid of making distinctions that we won’t look at the preponderance of failed policies that try to do just these things?

Justice.  Liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice all go together.  But what is justice?  Webster again says, “the administration of law.”  Fairness is lumped in here but it is under the rubric of fair exacting of the administration of justice.  Take immigration policy: if it is against the law to come to this country without following the due process, then it is appropriate to ask for the necessary proof of citizenship when there is warrant and deport as necessary.  Why doesn’t this make sense?  This is especially true in areas where illegal immigration is most rampant.  If illegal immigration is a problem, then we should enforce our current law and reconsider then: too demanding or harsh, too lax, etc.?  Hard but not intolerable conditions in country A, doesn’t justify the breaking of immigration laws in neighboring country B.  This is common sense.  It is unjust if a senator who commits a crime goes unpunished but a citizen committing the same crime is punished.  I’ve never known a toddler who failed to perceive what is just – it is no mystery.

Safety.  Safety finds its way into the Declaration because it fits with liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice.  Recklessness in governance doesn’t just take the form of armed oppression as we see in Communist countries.  It also takes form in taxation and regulation.  Too little taxation deprives government of the resources it needs to pursue justice and public safety.  Too much taxation deprives families of the resources needed to live.  Regulation is likewise a balance of too little and too much.  No one said freedom would be easy.

Prudence.  Those of us alive when President George H.W. Bush governed us, remember well the little quip from him (or was it Dana Carvey?) about being prudent…Nonetheless, prudence, the ability to govern oneself or to exercise skill and good judgment in the use of resources knows no parochial boundary.  Is debt prudent?  Is waste prudent?  Is rewarding sloth prudent?  Is extravagance prudent?  How hard is it to use this as a means to evaluate how one should govern?  The overwhelming majority of folks use prudence in their daily affairs, how is the exercise to be different in the affairs of state?

Definitions of evil. As I mentioned above, the Founders were not afraid to face reality.  Declaring some things to be good and others to be evil is neither hard nor to be feared.  It is a sign of virtue.  What is good and evil is also neither hard nor to be feared.  We think courage is to deny evil, rather it is to declare and fight it.  Life propels forward upon the straining for the good away from the bad.  Crooks and criminals strain for the good of wealth and satisfaction even as they do it in evil ways.  The state is the agency of justice and therefore must absolutely be willing to call evil by its first name – no matter what that is.  “Political correctness” is a euphemism for cowardice and the perpetuation of evil.  The Founders were willing – as have been many politicians of all categories – to call it like everyone sees it.

Patience.  Call this “vision”: it is pitiful that our threshold of vision is an election cycle.  The number of policies that have been written and signed into law that go into effect after an election cycle are legion – and shameful.  If officials are not willing to live with a policy immediately, then how will it be more palatable afterward?  Does bad news get better with time?  Men and women of principle need to apprehend an important fact: what we live in was not built in one or two (or ten) election cycles.  Rather, it has been growing upon the foundation of our Founding Documents for hundreds of years now.  Whether it survives into the future depends in part on whether our elected officials can muster the courage required to be visionaries and to patiently pursue it.

#  #

The founders presumed upon the common apprehension of these natural laws.  They didn’t believe these to be the province of a religious or an a-religious few but of all people.  These are things we all know.  Of course, to the degree that they intersect with a political platform, good.  If not, that part of the platform must change. We might want to stop accusing each other of pandering to special interest groups; we all do it, for dog-dog.  Instead, why don’t we, with fortitude and vision, adopt principles common to all man and right this ship?  Will that be you?

If you ride the wave of election into office in November and beyond, please remember that it isn’t enough to just “throw the bums out.”  Rather, governance must be principled for it to be effective.  If you want to tell me that you’re a Christian (or not) fine.  What matters most to me in your role of public official is whether you will adopt common sense governing principles and the role of people’s servant.

Fairness Meters In Our Heads…They’re On!

Silva

We all say, at some time in our lives, “that’s not fair!”  Parents can count on hearing this all the time from their children.  Even those who are the most obsessed about keeping their kids from uttering the words, like infant-sized temper tantrums, the impulse to judge is hard wired into who we are.  (Those same obsessive parents will then be saying, “Hey, this isn’t fair!”)  Oh, for a dollar for all the conversations where the originating comment was “that’s not fair!”

Let’s talk about fairness, then.  If you sat down with a pen and paper to answer the query, “What in your life, in your judgment, isn’t fair?” the chances that you’d be staring at a blank piece of paper after five minutes are close to nil.  From the shape of our bodies to the size of what’s in our bank accounts; from the cars we drive to the phones we carry; from the promotions we didn’t get to the taxes that we have to pay.  Our fairness meters are very active.

Is this on your list of unfair things “I’m going to heaven”?  If you’re a Christian, it’s likely that you’ve considered the patent unfairness of that statement.  If you haven’t, you should.  I was reflecting on these words from William Farley’s book, Gospel Powered Parenting (pg. 75):

The Father’s love for his Son is intense: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17).  It is not a common love.  It is holy.  He loves his Son with omnipotence, which means all power, with infinite intensity.  He loves his Son with omniscience – all knowledge.  His gaze penetrates the infinite perfection of his Son’s deity.  Since the Son’s glory is infinite, only an infinite intellect can fully know and love him.  He knows the Son exhaustively, and what the Father knows and sees is the infinite perfection of the Son’s divinity.

But here is the stunning truth: such is the holiness of the Father that when the Son bore our sin and transgressions, God separated himself from him.  “My God, my God,” Jesus cried from the cross, “why have you forsaken me?”  (Matt. 27:46).

The holiness of God, His utter uniqueness and separation from all that’s not like Him, at that time demanded that He turn from His Son.  The very One with Whom He’d spent eternity in perfect harmony and relationship.  Why on earth would He ever do such a thing? Jesus’ quote of Psalm 22 about being forsaken is surely among the most stunning and breathtaking statements ever written.  Do we not see just what has taken place?

Add this to your paper (under a new heading, “Really Not Fair”),

  • I was born in sin (Psalm 51:5)
  • I sin because it was my nature (Ephesians 2:1-2)
  • My sins will lead to my death – justly and fairly (Romans 6:23)

Drumroll….

  • They don’t (Romans 6:4)

They don’t.  But why don’t they?  They must!  I am the man!  I am the angry man; I am the thief; I am the adulterer; I am the one who rages against the rule of God!  I am the one guilty of my sins.  Why on earth do we read of the blameless Holy Son walking the streets of Jerusalem soaked in blood carrying a cross?  Why is He the one who’s been nailed to it?  Why?

Don’t talk yourself into the good news until you’ve come to grips with the cosmic truth that what happened at Calvary wasn’t fair.  All that is or isn’t fair is judged in light of that event.  Those events weren’t fair in ways that we can never really grasp – larger ways that should scare you.  Do Paul’s words in Romans 8, stun you?

What then shall we say to these things?  If God is for us, who can be against us?  He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?

Shocking truths that we must consider.  This leads to what we must also talk ourselves into: the truth that in Jesus Christ, having been covered in His blood, we appear before the throne of God.  And as He looks to you and me, affection and welcome and rest are given in abundant measures.  Wow.

I am scarcely able to lift my head to gaze upon them…But, I don’t have to, He reaches down to all those who call upon His name and He lifts our heads (Psalm 3:3).  His grace never ends.  Alleluia.