Breakfast Links

Thabiti Anyabwile, author of The Decline of African American Theology, talks with Christianity Today's Collin Hansen about Jeremiah Wright, black theology, and the African American church.

Speaking of CT, they recently announced the winners of their 2008 Book Awards.

Good thoughts from John Mark Reynolds on the difficulty of married love.


Kyle Vaughn at Resurgence asks whether considers whether the digital age is in fact a new Dark Age and suggests how the church can minister to those burdened and heavy laden with information:

As Christians, we need to deeply understand how the gospel impacts and gives us a responsibility concerning knowledge as well as understand how a lost world around us is drowning in a storm of information that they don't know what to do with. We live in a unique time in terms of knowledge. Never before in the history of mankind have so many people had the ability to learn (literacy) and had the access to such a vast array of information and even other cultures. With a vast network of libraries and information systems, particularly the internet, one only needs to travel one block over or click a button to access just about everything mankind has ever known or experienced. But mankind is adrift in its thinking. This boom of knowledge it would seem has led to only more despair.

Daniel J. Solove, associate professor of law at the George Washington University Law School, examines another facet of information technology's societal impact in his book The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press, 2007). Its full text is available online for free. (HT: Question Technology)

To Everyone Who's Sent Me One of Those Inspirational Chain E-mails

I did what you told me...I sent the email prayer to 12 people like you said. I'm still waiting for that miracle.

For a more substantive rant against Christian chain e-mails, see my Forward If You Love Jesus.

Athens in Cyberland

[More pressing responsibilities require that I give less attention to blogging so I'm recycling an article originally posted on 5/27/05. Readers suffering from the condition therein described may not appreciate it due to its age.]

Before recounting Paul's address to the Areopagus, Luke offers the following parenthetical description of the Athenian climate: "Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new" (Acts 17:21). This once great city was a draw for people who trafficked in ideas -especially those hot off the mental press. New philosophies were to Athens what fashion is to Manhattan's Seventh Avenue. This reputation for being a city populated by people with a craving for novelty was long-standing. Richard Longenecker, in his commentary on Acts, cites Cleon, a fifth-century BC politician and general, as telling his fellow Athenians: "You are the best people at being deceived by something new that is said."

There is nothing new under the sun, including our ravenous desire for what is novel. Aren't we frequently driven by the lust (and I don't think that's too strong a word) for something new? I think about the time I've wasted glued to some cable news channel fearful that I might miss a breaking story or further developments of a major story already out. In an attempt to keep the viewing audience tuned in, it's not uncommon for the hosts of one news program to talk with the host of the following program. Hannity & Colmes, for instance, after saying about everything that could possibly be said about the major story of the day will ask Greta Van Susteren what's coming up on her show. "Well, Sean, we'll be covering the latest breaking news on the story you've been talking about," she says. Translation: "I'll be taking a few more swings at the horse you and Alan just beat to death." Still, I watch just in case there really is something new.

The hunger for newness is also quite apparent in the church. How many times have you heard someone, after hearing a sermon, say with disappointment, "He didn't say anything I didn't already know" or "I didn't learn anything new"? Those of us charged with the task of preaching and teaching are equally afflicted by the quest for the uncommon. We may, at times, be embarrassed to declare familiar truths to God's people, forgetting that informing is only one goal of biblical proclamation. Reminding believers of what they already know is of equal value. Understanding this is what led Peter to write:

Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder (2 Peter 1:13, ESV, emphasis mine)

The Athenians would love the blogosphere. Some items on others' blogs made me consider how blogging appeals to the Athenian spirit and may even nurture it. Last month Justin Taylor, with tongue in cheek, began a post commenting on a year-old article with these words:

I know blogging is supposed to be cutting edge, commenting on the latest article to appear and what not. I’m also aware that my blogging credentials might be revoked for highlighting an ancient article (from 2004). But I’m willing to take that risk.

In an insightful piece called Recovering Wisdom in the Blogosphere Joe Carter wrote:

Almost every blog has an archive listed by date and category but the average blog reader will never take advantage of this resource. Why? Because we assume that anything that was written in the past (i.e., last month) will be of little relevance today. We accept the absurd notion that the latest news is more necessary for understanding our times than the past. But, to paraphrase the historian Arnold Toynbee, the blogger trying to understand the present is like the man with his nose pressed against the mirror trying to see his whole body.

In addition to making us intolerant of what is old and known, our craving for the current can train us to readily dismiss anything that requires sustained attention. I speak from experience. The confession of an anonymous commenter in response to one of my previous posts could easily be mine:

The scary thing for this "cognitive tourist" is that I find myself scanning for and reading the shortest blog entries and articles most of the time. Even if a blog entry title is something that peaks my interest I will most likely skip it if it looks too lengthy! I almost skipped over [your post] due to it's length... sad, I know. With so many great blogs out there and great links one is left with the sense that there is just no time to stop and think too long. You just have to keep going and going so you don't miss anything, but in the end you end up digesting very little.

Honey, Honey: On Moderating Information Intake

Over the weekend I didn't check my RSS reader once. I thought about it a few times but the thought of how many unread blog posts awaited me led to my putting it off until this morning. "I really have to excise some subscriptions," I thought to myself as I deleted posts in mass. Proverbial counsel came to mind as I labored to get the number of unread posts under 100+. " If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you have your fill of it and vomit it" (Proverbs 25:16). This is the flip-side of counsel offered in the previous chapter: "My son, eat honey, for it is good, and the drippings of the honeycomb are sweet to your taste" (Proverbs 24:13). The lesson is that moderation in the consumption of even good things is a mark of wisdom.

I frequently think about the application of this truth to technology and the vast amounts of valuable information it allows us to access. I fear that Christians are prone to assess our use of information technologies solely on the basis of what kind of information is being conveyed with little thought given to how uncritical and excessive use of information technologies may have undesirable effects even when we are using them to communicate good things. Macht at Prosthesis recently shared a proposal for a book that I hope he will someday write. Here's what he said:

If I were to write a book about a Christian approach to technology, I would begin by surveying a number of different views of technology. Then I would argue that most people take an instrumental view of technology. Then I would point out how this view causes them to see the good and bad in technology based on how it is used. For example, somebody might say that computers are good when they allow us to keep in touch with friends who live far away, but they are bad when they help people to such things as this. Then I would argue that this instrumental view is insufficient for characterizing technology. Not only are we affected by how we use technology, but we are affected when we use technology (regardless of the ends for which we use it). Our everyday use of technologies instills in us a certain way of living - it teaches us, it disciplines us, it forms us. Then I would look at various technologies that we all use every day and compare how they discipline us. Finally, I would compare these with various spiritual disciplines and then attempt to offer suggestions about what to do if and when any conflict arises.

What Macht points out is the necessity of giving serious thought to how we help each other live faithfully to Christ in our decisions about whether and how we make use of cell phones, email, blogs, etc. Judging from the results of America Online's third annual Email Addiction survey (12% of those surveyed admitted to checking email in church), there's just cause for believers to consider and converse about whether we are using technology in ways that affirm our professed convictions about God, creation, the unity of truth and the dignity of human being. Where in the life of the church, I wonder, does such instruction take place. We relegate such discussion to the realms of academia to our own detriment.

Quentin Schultze has long been one of the too few voices calling Christ-followers to theologically reflect on our technological practices. In Habits of the High-Tech Heart: Living Virtuously in the Information Age, he issues the following caution about how the failure to exercise self-control in information consumption can lead to a fragmentary and shallow existence:

Information technologies are biased against the discovery of coherent moral wisdom and in favor of the spread of fragmented information. The dissemination of information can become an incessant noise that repeatedly diverts our attention from greater matters. Like slot machine players in a casino, we lose track of the rhythms of the natural world. Unless we learn moderation, our lives will be a mishmash of messages and information that is ever more tenuously connected to concrete obligations, cultures, and traditions. More and more people have the power to exchange messages and access databases, but fewer people seem to know what life means or how to live it well. Coping with the pace of messaging is enough trouble for the day. In the information age, who has time and energy to cobble together a moral vision? (p. 48)

Joe in WaPo

Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost fame is featured in a Washington Post article on evangelical bioethics and the web.

Is it just me or does Joe resemble Kevin Spacey?

Look Out, MySpace!

With tongue in cheek, Doug Groothuis announces a new social networking site - MyWorld.com

A MySpace Primer for Parents

A few months ago I attended a seminar for parents conducted by one of our local police officers at neighborhood middle school. The officer was sharing information from i-Safe, a group specializing in internet safety education. I was surprised at the reactions of many of the parents upon learning just what their children were capable of doing with their home computers and an internet connection. Eyes widened and jaws dropped as technologically-challenged parents were introduced to the world of webcams, instant messaging, and social networking.

U.S. News & World Report recently ran a cover story for parents appropriately titled "Decoding MySpace." It's filled with helpful information and a few unsettling statistics like the following:

Parents who would never allow their child to go to a party unless they knew that an adult would be present let their kids pilot themselves through the online world without any supervision whatsoever. A June survey of 267 pairs of teens and parents in the Los Angeles metropolitan area by a psychology professor at California State University-Dominguez Hills found that two thirds of parents had never talked with their teen about their MySpace use, and 38 percent of them had never seen their child's MySpace profile. "Parents are chicken," says Parry Aftab, an Internet privacy lawyer and executive director of WiredSafety.org..."They don't understand the technology, so they're reluctant to get involved."

I'm sure technological ineptitude is partially responsible for parents' non-involvement with their teens' online activity. But I suspect another factor is at least as much to blame if not moreso. Many parents dread the thought of their kids not liking them and consequently refuse to "invade" their "privacy" or enter into any kind of conversation that might seem like snooping. Michelle Alden, one of the mom's mentioned in the article, is not one of them:

The 40-year-old teacher's aide in Idaho City, Idaho, says she is uncomfortable with the site's profile format, as it encourages youngsters to present themselves as if they're looking for sex. Why, she wonders, does the site ask kids to describe their body type and sexual orientation? But instead of trying to forbid the site, she's opted to set guidelines and talk regularly with her 15-year-old daughter about her page, which she uses primarily to stay in touch with friends. "I think it's better to go ahead and have the struggle, because soon enough she's going to be out on her own," she says, "and I only have a few more years to have those conversations with her."

Some of the best parenting advice my wife and I ever received was from the wife of one of our pastors who said, "Your kids are not going to like you for some reason so you'd better make sure it's a good one."

Thanks. No.

I've considered composing a form letter with which to reply to those who well-meaningly include me in the group to whom they forward the latest e-rumor, joke, inspirational story, or "If you really love Jesus you'll forward this" email (my fondness for which I expressed here). Until I get around to composing that letter, I'll just send this link. (HT: Greg Linscott)

Teens Teaching Teens to Cut, Starve, and Choke Themselves

The February 2006 issue of Reader's Digest has an article that youth workers and parents should read. It's about the rising number of American teens who practice various forms of self-injurious behavior such as cutting, anorexia, and nearly asphyxiating themselves to induce a drug-like high by cutting off oxygen to the brain. Though the article does not frame things theologically, it vividly illustrates the role that socialization plays in sin's outworking. According to one pediatrician quoted in the article, "These practices are spreading like wildfire because of the Internet."

Psychologists, pediatricians and youth counselors contend that under the radar, hundreds of websites and chat rooms are fueling an explosion of self-destructive practices considered in vogue by a surprising number of kids. They swap techniques about how to injure themselves -- and, like Joel and Caitlin, keep it all hidden from their parents.

"Clearly, the Internet is a major tool for good," says Ken Mueller, co-director of CPYU.org, an informational website about youth culture. "But as we're seeing now, it can also lead to great harm. Kids become addicted to these sites, and suddenly behaviors that used to be considered taboo are no longer hidden, which makes them seem more acceptable -- even cool."

If the statistics offered in this piece are credible, this is an issue that the church will be facing with greater frequency. One resource I'd recommend as an introduction to the subject from a theological perspective is a booklet authored by Ed Welch called Self-Injury: When Pain Feels Good. Welch explores the various things self-injurious behavior can be saying (e.g., "I am guilty. I must be punished," "I am angry," "I can't feel this way any longer; hurting myself is the only way to stop my feelings") and shows how all of them point to God and how the gospel offers real hope to those enslaved to these self-destructive patterns of living. Addressing the objection some might raise to the suggestion that self-abuse is at root a spiritual issue, Welch writes:

This seems like a harsh way to explain the possible inner workings of self-injury, but if we really believe that self-injurers share a bond with those who don't purposely injure themselves, we would expect self-injurers to have a lot of "self" motivating their behavior. We all do! Scripture consistently reminds us that our greatest problem, even more than Satan himself, is our selfish desires (James 4:1-3). Pride and self-interest tend to rule our hearts. Contrary to what we may think, self-love is never a biblical command. The command is that we love others to the degree that we love ourselves (Matt. 19:18).

I touched on the topic of self-love in a recent post which, if you missed, you can find here.

Self-Produced Child Porn

There's a disturbing article in today's New York Times about teens who use webcams to start their own home-based pornography businesses. They call themselves "camwhores."

The business has created youthful Internet pornography stars - with nicknames like Riotboyy, Miss Honey and Gigglez - whose images are traded online long after their sites have vanished. In this world, adolescents announce schedules of their next masturbation for customers who pay fees for the performance or monthly subscription charges. Eager customers can even buy "private shows," in which teenagers sexually perform while following real-time instructions.

The lure is the prospect of easy money. Many teenagers solicit "donations," request gifts through sites like Amazon.com or negotiate payments, while a smaller number charge monthly fees.

The central figure in the story is a boy named Justin, now 19, who entered the world of cybersex five years ago shortly after acquiring a webcam he originally hoped would help him connect with other teenagers. He didn't attract the attention of any adolescents but did catch the eye of a number of adult men. One of them helped him set up an account on PalPal.com and promised him $50 to sit in front of his camera bare-chested. Eventually his "audience" grew to 1,500 paying customers (Justin earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in under 5 years) and the requests became more sordid.

One of the most alarming things about this story (and there are many) is the description of the people who paid for Justin's services:

In its investigation, The Times obtained the names and credit card information for the 1,500 people who paid Justin to perform on camera, and analyzed the backgrounds of 300 of them nationwide. A majority of the sample consisted of doctors and lawyers, businessmen and teachers, many of whom work with
children on a daily basis.

As Justin's business grew, he became technologically more savvy, adding more sophisticated cameras to his computer system which he hid in his room. There's a sobering lesson for parents in all this:

Justin's mother, Karen Page, said she sensed nothing out of the ordinary. Her son seemed to be just a boy talented with computers who enjoyed speaking to friends online. The Webcam, as she saw it, was just another device that would improve her son's computer skills, and maybe even help him on his Web site development business.

"Everything I ever heard was that children should be exposed to computers and given every opportunity to learn from them," Ms. Page said in an interview.
She never guessed that one of her son's first lessons after turning on his Webcam was that adults would eagerly pay him just to disrobe a little.

A video interview with Justin is also available (check sidebar of article).
 


Earlier this month Al Mohler wrote a commentary about the dangers associated with the explosion of teen blogging in which he said, "Responsible Christian parents will establish clear boundaries and rules for their childrens' use of the Internet. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy when it comes to what their teenagers are doing and writing on the Internet. The stakes are simply too high." In light of this new phenomenon, the extent of which is unknown, such a warning is all the more urgent.

One More Link: Internet Addiction Disorder?

The New York Times reports that some mental health professionals estimate that 6 to 10 percent of the U.S.'s approximately 189 million Internet users are "onlineaholics" who suffer from a condition they call Internet addiction disorder. Other therapists, however, are opposed to such a designation, calling it a "fad illness." Addressing the question of what counts as addictive online behavior, Rick Zehr, the vice president of addiction and behavioral services at Proctor Hospital, says, "The line is drawn with Internet addiction when I'm no longer controlling my Internet use. It's controlling me."


In light of my last post, I found the following excerpt particularly interesting:

Dr. Cash and other therapists say they are seeing a growing number of teenagers and young adults as patients, who grew up spending hours on the computer, playing games and sending instant messages. These patients appear to have significant developmental problems, including attention deficit disorder and a lack of social skills.

Ironically, some therapists and treatment centers offer online counseling, a practice that according to critics is "akin to treating an alcoholic in a brewery."

A related article (linked to from the above article - I can't get the NYT link generator to work) offers the following 15 signs of Internet addiction according to Internet/Computer Addiction Services:
 

1. Inability to predict the amount of time spent on computer.

2. Failed attempts to control personal use for an extended period of time.

3. Having a sense of euphoria while on the computer.

4. Craving more computer time.

5. Neglecting family and friends.

6. Feeling restless, irritable and discontent when not on the computer.

7. Lying to employers and family about computer activity.

8. Problems with school or job performance as a result of time spent on the computer.

9. Feelings of guilt, shame, anxiety or depression as a result of time spent on the computer.

10. Changes in sleep patterns.

11. Health problems like carpal tunnel syndrome, eye strain, weight changes, backaches and chronic sleep deprivation.

12. Denying, rationalizing and minimizing adverse consequences stemming from computer use.

13. Withdrawal from real-life hobbies and social interactions.

14. Obsessing about sexual acting out through the use of the Internet.

15. Creation of enhanced personae to find cyberlove or cybersex.

IM One Another

A few hours after posting the link to a contemporized letter from Screwtape last week, I heard a real-life example that further illustrates how important it is for church leaders (and for that matter, all Christians) to understand how heavy use of information technologies is shaping the minds and practices of those we’re seeking to help mature in the faith.
 

In a gathering of pastors last week, one young man who works with people in their 20’s and 30’s related how readily many of these folks share the very intimate details of their lives on a website that bills itself as a community of online diaries and journals. Some make 3 or 4 entries a day, recording their fears, failures, frustrations, and disappointments. Yet, according to this pastor, they rarely speak about these issues with others. Borne out of his sincere desire to better understand and minister to his people, this young pastor has made a habit of regularly reading their contributions to their virtual journals and offers biblical counsel, often via email.

I was fascinated as I listened to him describe how widespread this phenomenon is. He said that many of the men he deals with are lacking in social skills and are much more comfortable communicating through the Internet. As an example of this, he told us of one young man who, while in college, regularly instant messaged his roommate while they were in the same room. My immediate reaction, upon hearing this, was to laugh. The image of two guys tapping away at computer keyboards in order to “speak” to each other sounded at first like something out of a comedy. However, looking into the face of the pastor telling the story made it clear that this was no joke. I felt ashamed for finding this scenario humorous. Tears are a much more appropriate response. What a graphic depiction of alienation and loneliness this is – two bearers of the divine image, endowed with the wondrous gifts of language, speech, hearing, and facial expression which God gave us in order to experience the joys of knowing and being known – choosing instead to avert each other’s gaze and fix their eyes on screens. Painfully aware that there is something wrong with us, we try in vain to cover our nakedness with electronic fig leaves.

What is even sadder is the likelihood that these men are representative of countless others who daily traffic in various communication technologies yet exist in a state of personal isolation. How do the “one another’s” of the New Testament get fleshed out among people more comfortable LOL’ing than actually laughing together? God does not command us to :-) with those who rejoice and :-( with those who weep but to actually enter into each other’s joys and sorrows thereby representing Christ to each other. 


I don't offer these thoughts from a stance of superiority or self-righteousness but as one who is often ashamed of and frustrated with my own foolish use of communication technologies. How should the fear of the Lord manifest itself in my thinking about and use of high-tech gadgets that promise to keep me well-informed, connected, and entertained? How do I use these things in a manner consistent with my professed beliefs about creation, sin, the image of God, and sanctification? The Bible tells us to consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds. In our day of ubiquitous cell phones, voicemails, emails, computers, PDA's, and mp3 players, the church should aim to help believers use these items with wisdom and love. I was the recipient of such counsel recently. When I mentioned to my friend Tony at Theological Meditations that I was seriously thinking about getting an mp3 player, he offered the following word of warning:

...having an mp3 player can help to redeem the time that is usually wasted by driving or standing around. I use mine while sorting packages at UPS. I'm able to listen to it without compromising my job performance. There's one thing I've noticed at work. I get irritated with some people who come up and want to talk to me while I am listening to an excellent audio message. It's like I want to be an intellectual sponge and avoid opportunities to befriend co-workers. This misses the whole point of why I am listening to the messages, i.e. to reflect the goodness, truth and beauty of Christ to a lost world around me with a view to God's glory. Anyway, just beware of this tendency if you get one.

With the staggering statistics about how many people are ensnared in Internet porn, it's understandable that most of the exhortations we hear concerning information technology involve the moral content of the medium. We have to continue to sound that warning while also encouraging more thoughtful reflection about what other forms faithfulness to Jesus should take in how we use technological tools. Using them in humanizing rather than dehumanizing ways can be a powerful part of our witness to the world.

In Recovery

From what I've read, it's customary to begin a post explaining why you've not been blogging for a while with an apology but if I were to do that it would be insincere so I won't. Apologies are appropriate when there has been an infraction of some kind but I don't think that's the case when one takes a hiatus from blogging. Now, when I move over to paid subscriptions and I miss a few days, then I'll apologize. 

Anyway, the demands of ministry as well as the necessity to get more pressing writing done have kept me away from this venue. At first I was slightly anxious about not having anything new to post but I soon got over it. I also didn't miss my regular trips to sitemeter and TTLB to see my ranking. I even fell behind in keeping up with my daily reads of the blogs I subscribe to via Bloglines. 

Overall, the time away was good for me. It helped me refocus on what’s really important and where my priorities should lie (a lesson I am forever in need of being taught). The time away also helped me realize the necessity and benefit of not waiting until life’s pressures force me away from being computer-bound but to take intentional steps to see to it that I do not allow technology to become my master. I took a small step toward this yesterday. I previously had my email program set to check for mail every 15 minutes. I’ve changed that to 45 and may up it to 60. My easily distracted and curious mind has frequently been sidetracked by the notification of new arrivals in my inbox. Too often I stopped what I was doing to read and immediately respond to the new messages, wondering why, at the end of the day, I didn’t get as much accomplished as I had hoped.

Among the blogs I made it a point to catch up with were some interesting posts related to the problem of media saturation:

Milton Stanley humbly articulated what I too have to confess -- “I’ve been spending way too much time on the computer and far too little time in prayer."

Al Mohler commented on this article by Lowell Monke about the adverse consequences of children spending excessive amounts of time on computers:

Computers have their place, and can be great learning tools for certain subjects. But children are now spending far too much time staring at electronic screens and “learning” through digitalized programs of study. Dancing electronic dots have replaced human interaction. Monke understands that education requires far more than this – and that what happens on the playground is important too.

(I shudder to think what I would be like if I had been exposed to computers at such an early age.)

Thanks to Macht for linking to Byron Borger’s impressive bibliography of books “that can help us think Christianly about cyberspace and computer science.”

Finally, in an Outtake item he called “Info Addicts,” Joe Carter cited a Ball State University study that found the average person spends more time using media devices than any other activity while awake. According to one of the researchers:

Television is still the 800-pound gorilla because of how much the average person is exposed to it. However, that is quickly evolving. When we combine time spent on the Web, using e-mail, instant messaging and software such as word processing, the computer eclipses all other media with the single exception of television.

Joe’s reference to information addiction brings to mind a vivid mental image that popped into my head not long ago. I'll set it forth for your consideration in the form of a question. Are bloggers analogous to a room full of bulimics feeding each other?

Bon Appetit!

Using Technology Humanely

Thanks to James Kushiner at Mere Comments for making me aware of this article on "Technology and the Spirit of Human Ownership" by Paul J. Cella III in which the author offers the following caution about blogging and other forms of Internet discourse:

Technology can also obscure the humanity of the human beings we interact with. For example, the Internet is wonderfully efficient at distributing information and at democratizing the Fourth Estate, but it can also isolate and dehumanize. Anyone familiar with Internet debate understands this reality all too well. There is a sort of raucous and wooly community among the multitude of bloggers. It is always fascinating, frequently rewarding, and at times magnificent: a genuine innovation in free speech and republican discourse. But it is also conducive to meanness and slander. The ordinary inhibitions of human interaction, the natural respect and civility that should be extended between even those who disagree, is attenuated and at times almost nonexistent. The result is often a kind of disembodied aggression, a drab uncharity. People troll the Internet hunting for targets of animus on whom to unleash their polemical weapons. It is very easy on the Web to forget that you are actually in a distant way engaging real people. And in forgetting that, ferocity ensues. Blogging is spirited, but it often lends itself to rancor. At its best, it brings distant people with shared interests together in ways once unimaginable. At its worst, it reflects the radical isolation of technologically-inebriated creatures. In its glories and entangled perils it illustrates the truth that we must be mindful of all that is human behind our contrivances, lest they devour us.

Athens in Cyberland

Before recounting Paul's address to the Areopagus, Luke offers the following parenthetical description of the Athenian climate: "Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new" (Acts 17:21). This once great city was a draw for people who trafficked in ideas -especially those hot off the mental press. New philosophies were to Athens what fashion is to Manhattan's Seventh Avenue. This reputation for being a city populated by people with a craving for novelty was long-standing. Richard Longenecker, in his commentary on Acts, cites Cleon, a fifth-century BC politician and general, as telling his fellow Athenians: "You are the best people at being deceived by something new that is said."

There is nothing new under the sun, including our ravenous desire for what is novel. Aren't we frequently driven by the lust (and I don't think that's too strong a word) for something new? I think about the time I've wasted glued to some cable news channel fearful that I might miss a breaking story or further developments of a major story already out. In an attempt to keep the viewing audience tuned in, it's not uncommon for the hosts of one news program to talk with the host of the following program. Hannity & Colmes, for instance, after saying about everything that could possibly be said about the major story of the day will ask Greta Van Susteren what's coming up on her show. "Well, Sean, we'll be covering the latest breaking news on the story you've been talking about," she says. Translation: "I'll be taking a few more swings at the horse you and Alan just beat to death." Still, I watch just in case there really is something new.

The hunger for newness is also quite apparent in the church. How many times have you heard someone, after hearing a sermon, say with disappointment, "He didn't say anything I didn't already know" or "I didn't learn anything new"? Those of us charged with the task of preaching and teaching are equally afflicted by the quest for the uncommon. We may, at times, be embarrassed to declare familiar truths to God's people, forgetting that informing is only one goal of biblical proclamation. Reminding believers of what they already know is of equal value. Understanding this is what led Peter to write:

Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder (2 Peter 1:13, ESV, emphasis mine)

The Athenians would love the blogosphere. Some items on others' blogs made me consider how blogging appeals to the Athenian spirit and may even nurture it. Last month Justin Taylor, with tongue in cheek, began a post commenting on a year-old article with these words:

I know blogging is supposed to be cutting edge, commenting on the latest article to appear and what not. I’m also aware that my blogging credentials might be revoked for highlighting an ancient article (from 2004). But I’m willing to take that risk.

In an insightful piece called Recovering Wisdom in the Blogosphere Joe Carter wrote:

Almost every blog has an archive listed by date and category but the average blog reader will never take advantage of this resource. Why? Because we assume that anything that was written in the past (i.e., last month) will be of little relevance today. We accept the absurd notion that the latest news is more necessary for understanding our times than the past. But, to paraphrase the historian Arnold Toynbee, the blogger trying to understand the present is like the man with his nose pressed against the mirror trying to see his whole body.

In addition to making us intolerant of what is old and known, our craving for the current can train us to readily dismiss anything that requires sustained attention. I speak from experience. The confession of an anonymous commenter in response to one of my previous posts could easily be mine:

The scary thing for this "cognitive tourist" is that I find myself scanning for and reading the shortest blog entries and articles most of the time. Even if a blog entry title is something that peaks my interest I will most likely skip it if it looks too lengthy! I almost skipped over [your post] due to it's length... sad, I know. With so many great blogs out there and great links one is left with the sense that there is just no time to stop and think too long. You just have to keep going and going so you don't miss anything, but in the end you end up digesting very little.

Thinking About Linking

As a neophyte blogger, I'm very appreciative of advice offered by the more seasoned members of the blogosphere. Joe Carter offers very helpful tips on linking. Of course, I'm violating one of them by linking to a site that most of the readers of this one probably check out frequently.

Joe's post reminded me of some of Doug Groothuis's reflections in The Soul in Cyberspace. Here are some quotes from a chapter called "Hypertext Realities and Effects":

One much-heralded technology, known as hypertext, is especially potent in its ability to fragment literary meaning and textual authority. Hypertext allows users to have access to various parts of a document, or of several documents at once, by merely pointing and clicking. This function tends to encourage a swift skimming, surfing, or scanning or information according to nonlinear association (p. 65)
Because texts in cyberspace are so malleable and movable, we can easily lose the sense of a unitary author as the source of meaning. This shift in emphasis dovetails with the postmodernist or deconstructionist attack of objective meaning, on the legitimacy of comprehensive worldviews, and on the integrity of literary texts as expressing the determined intention of their authors (p. 68).
Cyberspace offers the promise of a kind of cognitive ubiquity - the world at our keyboard and screen - at the cost of depth. This encourages one to become a cognitive tourist, who visits many sites on the Net, downloads and combines many bits of data, but understands very little . . . the cognitive tourist of cyberspace may easily visit (and possibly record) information without digesting it (pp. 73-74).

Quentin Schultze raises similar concerns in Habits of the High-Tech Heart:

In cyberspace, we approach communication superficially, like surfers skimming through Web pages. One of the most influential Web-design gurus, Jakob Nielsen, claims that only 16 percent of Internet users actually read Web pages word-by-word. He concludes that Web writers should compose about half as many words for the Web as they would for the printed page. Internet researchers similarly discovered that Web surfers are too impatient to read much; surfers are "basically scanning. there's very little actual comprehension going on." [Quote from "The No-Book Report: Skim it and Weep"] Such brevity may be a virtue if the purpose of communication is purely instrumental, such as conveying information about stock market conditions, baseball scores, and weather forecasts. But what if our purpose is noninstrumental and intrinsically moral - such as becoming genuinely intimate with a person or community, conversing about life, sharing in the fellowship of kindred spirits, mentoring colleagues, and nurturing children? Cyberspace is then at best an ancillary messaging medium rather than a prime location for cultivating shared knowing and moral wisdom. The real value of online communication, then, is largely instrumental - such as getting information, sending a message, setting up appointments, and making contact (p. 65).

I know of the impatience of which these authors write. I have always been an avid reader but I fear that my extended time online has habituated my mind such that at times I have greater difficulty to read even books I enjoy with sustained attention. It's like my mind is racing. The pace isn't fast enough. Has anyone else experienced that? If this is so for those who enjoy reading, what of those for whom reading was a challenge before they went online? Years ago I read a book called Preaching to Programmed People that sought to help pastors understand how the expectations and thinking of their congregations were conditioned by large doses of weekly television viewing. I wonder what the implications are for preaching (or any other means of biblical/theological education) to "cognitive tourists."

Joe Carter advises that linkers use "must read" sparingly. At the risk of violating another tip, I think Groothuis's and Schultze's books fall into that category.

Forward If You Love Jesus

Gone are the days of honking if you love Jesus. In the age of information technology, the new method of demonstrating one’s devotion to Christ is forwarding e-mail. At least that’s so according to a message forwarded to me recently whose subject read “DO YOU LOVE HIM?” The e-mail calls itself a “simple test” of whether the recipient loves Jesus. The reader is emphatically instructed (the directions are given in all upper case letters) to forward the e-mail to at least 10 other people including the person who forwarded it to him or her. The following poem appears in the body of the message:

I knelt to pray but not for long,
I had too much to do.
I had to hurry and get to work
For bills would soon be due.
So I knelt and said a hurried prayer,
And jumped up off my knees.
My Christian duty was now done
My soul could rest at ease.
All day long I had no time
To spread a word of cheer.
No time to speak of Christ to friends,
They'd laugh at me I'd fear.
No time, no time, too much to do,
That was my constant cry,
No time to give to souls in need
But at last the time, the time to die.
I went before the Lord,
I came, I stood with downcast eyes.
For in his hands God held a book;
It was the book of life.
God looked into his book and said
"Your name I cannot find.
I once was going to write it down...
But never found the time"

Immediately following the poem this question appears in bold letters: “Now do you have the time to pass it on?”

I don’t doubt for one moment that those who author and/or circulate messages such as these are well-intentioned, God-loving people who sincerely desire to spur fellow Christians on to godly living. In the case of the above poem, the good end in view is the ordering of our lives in such a way that our use of time reflects kingdom priorities as opposed to selfish pursuits. The temptation to allow the living God to be pushed to the margins of our thoughts and schedules by busyness is one we regularly face. That’s why the poem registers with us. There’s something about it that rings true with our experience and we know that what it’s calling us to is good and right. The motives behind messages like these are good. If we are going to be discerning, however, we have to do more than assess the ends and the motives. We must also evaluate the means and the messages used to reach the desired ends. It’s not enough to ask, “Is the goal a biblical one?” We must also ask whether the methods used to motivate toward the desired end are themselves consistent with the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Pragmatism is the belief that whatever measures help us successfully arrive at a desired goal are acceptable and permissible. Nothing is off limits as long as it aids us in accomplishing our task. “If it works” it’s right.” Pragmatism presupposes moral relativism and is therefore incompatible with a biblical worldview according to which God’s revelation in Scripture provides a standard for how we are to govern our lives. Pragmatism is enticing because it focuses on getting things done. After all, that’s what’s really important, isn’t it – results? Unfortunately, we as Christians are prone to believing that the answer to that question is yes. That’s the root of my concern about much of the e-mail endlessly forwarded among Christians. I fear that too much of it operates on pragmatic rather than biblical assumptions. Using the above e-mail as an illustration, I’d like to point out the evidences of a pragmatic mindset that forsakes biblical truth:

It relies upon man-centered manipulation. After I read the e-mail I had to decide what I was going to do with it. Was I going to forward it to 10 others including the person who had forwarded it to me or would I simply delete it? When I thought about the latter alternative, I admit considering what the sender would conclude about my spiritual state when he found that I had not “passed the test.” I certainly didn't want him to think that I didn't love Jesus.

Messages like this appeal to our fear of the opinions of others in order to get us to act a certain way. If this weren’t the case, it wouldn’t be necessary to include the person who forwarded the e-mail to you among those to whom you forward the message. According to the Bible, the fear of man brings a snare (Prov. 29:25). Who among us hasn’t felt imprisoned by our own craving for the acceptance and praise of others? While it may be of proven effectiveness to make people act in various ways, the fear of man can never produce the fear of the Lord that should be every Christian’s strongest motivation for obedience.

It plays on the emotions. Most of us probably remember the mathematical dictum that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Results-oriented thinking reasons in a similar fashion that the quickest way to yield a desired outcome is to appeal directly to the emotions as opposed to going the more circuitous route of addressing the mind. Advertisers are very familiar with the effectiveness of this technique. Television commercials give little information about the products being pitched. Instead, they seek to create positive emotional associations. Speaking of the strategy that has made MTV so popular among young people, founder Bob Pittman noted “The strongest appeal you can make…is emotionally. If you can get their emotions going, [make them] forget their logic, you’ve got ‘em.”…We make you feel a certain way as opposed to you walking away with any particular knowledge.”

This is not to deny the involvement of our emotions in our relationship with God and to advocate an intellectual stoicism. We are to love God with the entirety of our being. However, there is nothing Christian about pleas made to the emotions while neglecting the understanding. This is mere sentimentality which overlooks the vital role of the intellect in the process of transformation. As the late D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones noted in Spiritual Depression, “Truth comes to the mind and to the understanding enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Then having seen the truth the Christian loves it. It moves his heart…Truly to see the truth means that you are moved by it and that you love it. You cannot help it. If you see the truth clearly, you must feel it. Then that in turn leads to this, that your greatest desire will be to practice it and to live it.”

It presents a faulty view of God. This is by far the most serious matter. In order to make its point, the above poem portrays God as sharing our limitations and faults. He is capable of being distracted and preoccupied even to the point of never getting around to something he had intended to do – namely, record a sinner’s name in the book of life. Fortunately, this is not an accurate representation of the One who chose us in His Son from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and whose will it is that none of those He has given to His Son shall be lost. The triune God is not subject to the limitations of time, nor is His mind finite, requiring that He must decide what He will give attention to at a given time.

Another piece that has found its way into multiple electronic mailboxes and which also asks the reader if he/she has enough time to forward it to someone else, further illustrates the troublesome trend of portraying God in a sub-biblical manner in order to motivate believers to obey Him. The letter, written as though from God, recounts the numerous times throughout the day the Lord had hoped the addressee would spend time talking to Him. These divine hopes are consistently dashed, however, by the Christian’s preoccupation with other activities such as deciding what to wear, going to work, and watching television. Amidst the expressions of self-pity, God “writes”:

At one point you had to wait fifteen minutes with nothing to do except sit in a
chair. Then I saw you spring to your feet. I thought you wanted to talk to me
but you ran to the phone and called a friend to get the latest gossip.

Is the “God” who penned this letter the omniscient Lord of the Bible who understands our thoughts from afar (Ps. 139:2) and who has thorough knowledge of what we will speak before our lips make any utterance (Ps. 139:4)? By no means! Again, I understand and affirm the desire underlying these words. Provoking people to pray is most assuredly a biblically grounded aim. The Bible is filled with exhortations to God’s people to call upon Him in prayer. No, the problem isn’t with the desired outcome but with the method used to achieve it. God has told us what He is like and we are not free to make revisions in His self-disclosure in the name of stimulating believers in Christ to greater obedience. We can never glorify God by portraying Him in an unworthy (i.e., unbiblical) manner.

Ironically, both of the e-mails referred to, result from the very thing they’re identifying as a problem – lack of time for the Lord. By that, I’m not saying anything about the prayer lives of those who write and circulate such material. I have something else in mind. If we are going to be faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ, then certainly we must take time to pray. But we must also make time to study and reflect on the Scriptures in an attempt to construct an outlook on all of life that is biblically informed. We must also be willing to invest time to thoughtfully evaluate messages presenting themselves as Christian. A pragmatic mindset has no time for such contemplation and the speed of cyber-technology doesn’t encourage it. In his book The Soul in Cyberspace, philosopher Douglas Groothuis notes

:…the rapidity and immediacy of e-mail seem to encourage an emotional discharge and superficiality that would be less likely even in letters, because they require more physical involvement at every stage of composition – printing out the letter on paper, signing it, folding it, stuffing it in an envelope, sealing
the envelope, and carrying it to the mail box. This gives the writer more time and physical contact that allows him to reflect on matters that are (literally) "at hand" and "in hand” before committing the letter to the mail.

The next time you receive an inspirational e-mail urging you to pass it on to however many others, don’t impulsively hit the forward button. Pause and do some pondering. Ask yourself the following questions: Is this message appealing more to sentimentality than biblically sound instruction? Is it trying to target my emotions by bypassing my mind? Is it relying on man-centered shame or emotional blackmail as motivation to what may be a good thing? Is the presentation of God’s nature and character true to what He has revealed of Himself in the pages of Scripture? If after asking these questions you have doubts, don’t pass the message on. You won’t be contributing to the clutter in others’ lives and hopefully the time they would have spent reading your mail will be used more constructively. Remember, “forward” isn’t always the way of progress.

Verbal Litter

There are a lot of areas in which my conscience stands in need of greater sensitizing but one behavior about which I'm already scrupulous is littering. I have very little tolerance for people who cavalierly toss trash out of car windows and drop wrappers, cans, or bottles wherever they happen to be upon completing their contents. If you ever do my laundry you'll want to make sure you check my pants pockets first. There you'll most likely find scraps of paper and gum wrappers that I intended to throw out when I got to the next garbage can but never did. No, littering is not a temptation to which I'm prone.

The information age is strewn with verbal (not to mention visual) litter. I'm thinking about the proliferation of words that computers and other media allow us to generate and disseminate so easily that words become cheap and the wonder and responsibility of communication escape us. By verbal litter I mean the heaps of words that are carelessly spoken, typed, and forwarded; that must be waded through in search of those that are really valuable. Part of my reticence to begin blogging was due to the fear of contributing to the staggering volume of foolishness. According to Proverbs 18:2, a fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion. For that reason, the internet with its chatrooms, emails, blogs, and websites can be a fool's paradise.

Proverbs personifies wisdom and folly as two women calling out to the passersby to come in and dine upon the meals they've prepared. Lady Wisdom raises her voice "on the heights beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand; beside the gates in front of the town, at the entrance of the portals" (Prov. 8:1). There she pleads with the naive and simple to heed her invitations: "To you, O men, I call, and my cry is to the children of man. O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense." (Prov. 8:4-5). The reason she must raise her voice is because she is situated in the hub of activity, the city gates abuzz with commerce and a variety of other social activities. She must contend with countless other voices conveying messages far more appealing. She struggles to be heard above the din.

In an editorial that appeared in the March 20th volume of the Chicago Tribune ("Knowledge in U.S.: I Know I'm Right and You're Wrong") Robert McHenry, former editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica, describes the modern counterpart to the proverbial depiction of wisdom's struggle to be heard:

The simple fact is that the Internet has made instantly available to anyone who can connect to it all the information but also all the misinformation, all the thoughtful judgments as well as all the mindless prejudices, that the human race has thus far been able to digitize. It is left for us, the users whose lives are not lived entirely online but in the world, somehow to wade through these terabytes of data. Unfortunately, we are not, most of us, very good at this.

The frequent warnings against speaking rashly and answering before hearing a matter (marks of the fool and not the wise person) should lead us to seriously ponder how we make use of this medium. There's no doubt that the internet can be a valuable tool but we need to be on guard against buying into the values of what Quentin Schultze calls informationism, the utopian belief that the ability to transmit, acquire, and store information at greater speeds and volume is the means to overcoming societal decay. According to Schultze, "Informationism stresses the instrumental value of accessing information over the intrinsic good in knowing well." It shouldn't be difficult to see how enticing an emphasis on the instrumental value of accessing information is to an evangelical culture in which pragmatism often trumps truth.

The ability to instantly respond afforded by blogging, email, and other forms of information technology can indeed be a good thing but not necessarily. Schultze alerts us to a potential disadvantage:

Quickly sending and receiving short digital missives will never direct us to shalom. Many people have reached a point technologically where most of their communicating is only unreflective and trivial messaging. In the information age, we might be losing our capacity to listen and thus to become intimate with the moral wisdom embodied in religious practices. It may never even occur to us that listening can be a virtuous practice of willful obedience to truth. To listen is to give attention to the "other" - even to the divine other. From the perspective of cyberculture, listening is inefficient, old-fashioned, and impotent.

Unfortunately, Schultze's book, Habits of the High Tech Heart, is one whose cautionary notes will most likely only be read by those already aware of the dangers being cautioned against. Doug Groothuis's The Soul in Cyberspace is another valuable volume offering guidance in thinking about information technology from the perspective of a biblical worldview.