KMYoung.com
An on-going testament to God's providence and goodness
tag base
archives
guestbook
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Nine
CONCLUSION
For our society, the Church, and Christians in general, there seems to be no easy answer to dealing with the theological implications of technology in today’s culture. It should be the mission of the Church to be more aware of the ideologies that technology promotes and work to become a catalyst for understanding and change in today’s world. Christians should be more concerned with restoring God to the position of god in society and less concerned with power, prestige, and money.
posted by Kevin at 4/30/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Friday, April 29, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Eight
THE CHURCH
Up until this point, a somewhat bleak picture has been painted and to leave it at that would do a disservice to the reader. The goal of these posts until now has been to shed light on some issues that have not been thought through by many in our culture. But to not consider the steps the Church can take to help solve the problem would be considerably unfortunate.
To only use a methodology in a case-by-case examination of technology is not going to solve the problem that is posed by theology and technology. The root problem isn’t acceptance or rejection of technology, but the worldview that allows those harmful technologies to grow and thrive in American society. For this reason the Church must have a plan of action and direction to deal with a culture that subscribes to the ideology that technology is an adequate replacement for God and even the church itself.
The church must not lose sight of the fact that people are more important than things. Technology is not more important than humanity. This is a counter-cultural idea but mandatory in light of the Great Commission. We profess that we do not falter on this principle, but we continue to implement and laud technologies which make it more difficult to build relationships with others.
The worldview that pervades this technological society threatens religion by shifting a major portion of the world’s interests, motivations, and energies away from a religious center. The growing difference between what church-goers profess and how they act is a warning sign. Moreover, genuine religious vocabularies have lost their power and references, symbols, and images of religion no longer move people. Although there is a growth in religious concern among people, there is little or no interest in Christianity. Religious icons such as angels draw more attention than Jesus himself.
As the Church faces the reality of a technologically advanced generation, it must seek to creatively transform culture, both from within and without. The church must stand firm in its beliefs and continue to shed light on the true way to happiness and meaning in life. The church must seek to penetrate the culture with images and messages that challenge society’s defunct value system and instead communicate fundamental human values within a Biblical framework.
And most importantly, the Church must teach its members (God’s children) how to deal with technology without succumbing to its power. Technology should not be feared and avoided; it can be correctly used. Technology should be considered very good if it uses entities from God’s creation in a manner that respects their God-given nature and purpose, and if it increases human beings’ opportunities to be the joyful, loving, creative beings God intends them to be.
posted by Kevin at 4/29/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Seven
CYBERSPACE
An explosion in information access and exchange is fueling the Information Superhighway that was created as a result of the computer revolution. If technology has truly become a god, then cyberspace is definitely its bible. Its scope is endless; its breadth enormous. In America, there is no thing or no one that has escaped being affected by this relatively new technology, and the rest of the world is not far behind.
Should Christendom be concerned with the new surge in popularity and use of information technology?
Our Christian worldview reminds us that there is nothing under the sun that is not affected by the sin nature. In this fallen world, everyone and everything is a carrier of the disease... that includes computers and the current Information Age. But how should it be handled? Is it better to blindly accept the internet and all of its extensions or should we openly reject it?
French Theologian Jacques Ellul has wisely warned, “the initial exuberance over a new technology often masks the problems that come to be known only later, oftentimes when it is too late to make important corrections.” If Douglas Groothius (Ph.D, Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary) is correct, “Unless we possess a robust worldview sufficient to sort and rank the barrage of information, we will be left with . . . a merely ‘lateral consciousness,’ lacking the vertical dimension of seeing life sub specie aeternitus, under the aspect of eternity.”
On this basis, and for the sake of example, cyberspace (and more specifically, the Information Superhighway) will be evaluated on the basis of the stated methodology from Part Six. The Cyberspace/Information Superhighway is used to describe the Internet, bulletin board services, online services, and other technologies that enable people to obtain information from computer-based telecommunications networks.
Are we evaluating on the basis of a comprehensive, consistent, and cogent worldview?
Yes.
Does this technology displace life to our detriment?
Potentially. While more information could be considered beneficial at times, it could also lead to information glut (information without meaning and without any control mechanisms). We also must seriously consider information that should not be transferred, but is readily available such as explicit information of a pornographic nature and personal, medical, or credit information for instance.
Does this technology wound our soul?
Potentially. The Information Superhighway can be a time-waster. Few would argue with the fact that it is easy to become lost in the online milieu that is the Internet. If the Internet causes people to spend less time in prayer and in God’s Word, then it is a negative technology. If the Internet eats up time that could be better spent at Church, involved in ministry, or evangelizing, then it should be reevaluated. An even greater worry is the ease and speed with which a wealth of ungodly information can be accessed online. As mentioned earlier, Romans 12:2 says to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” The ability to wound the soul is probably the greatest reason why Christianity should be wary of cyberspace.
Does this technology dehumanize our culture?
Not directly. Although the foundation of cyberspace, the computer, definitely serves to dehumanize culture, the Information Superhighway itself does not. If anything, cyberspace is re-humanizing the computer revolution. The World Wide Web, through pictures and graphics, has added personality and more personal contact to a technology that for years was ‘just the facts.’ Although the statement might be made that this is a pseudo-rehumanization that masks true human characteristics with digital ones, this is at least a step in the right direction.
Does this technology erode connections of embodied personal relationships?
Yes. While the point is well taken that e-mail serves to connect those who would never have otherwise been able to connect, it cannot be argued that e-mail, chat rooms, and other communication outlets of the Information Superhighway have not served to break down embodied personal relationships. The real problem isn’t as much that we have more ways to communicate easier, but that many times people use them to replace personal contact instead of using it for supplemental contact means.
Does this technology displace the church’s position in society?
Potentially. The Information Superhighway does not directly hinder the work of the Church in this age. In fact, it can be a great asset! Where problems potentially arise is the effect that the technology has on non-Christians. If people are moved further away from God because of the damage done to their soul, then there might be a problem for the Church in fulfilling its mission. Further, if embodied personal relationships are broken down, then it becomes harder for the church to relate to a lost and dying world.
Does this technology replace or disrupt anything good that already exists?
Not really. The Information Superhighway is so unique that there is really nothing like it to compare it to. Considering the pervasiveness of the Information Superhighway, misuse of the technology could, of course, disrupt almost everything that exists. But foundationally the technology does not replace anything that is already in existence.
Does this technology serve to render the God of the Bible irrelevant?
To non-Christians, Yes. The Information Superhighway sets itself up as a god, thereby demoting God to a lower position. The information it contains provides direction in life for many people, a basis for meaning for some people, and leads many who use it to believe that all answers to life’s questions can be solved if only the right web page could be accessed.
Has this technology been thoroughly evaluated on the basis of pros and cons?
No. Much like many other technologies introduced in the recent past, the Information Superhighway was introduced and accepted almost without question or concern. Christians and non-Christians alike have both often blindly accepted the Internet and its uses without much thought to what changes it might bring about. Even today, after almost a decade in existence, these questions still go unanswered and are now seemingly irrelevant considering the hold cyberspace has on culture.
Does this technology destroy our view of truth and meaning?
Yes. The basic presupposition of the Information Superhighway is that it contains information on any subject and can answer any question. It causes people to search places other than God for direction, truth, and meaning. According to Groothius, in a culture where an image-based medium is the normative mode of expression “the very concepts of truth, reason, and evidence shift profoundly. Joshua Meyrowitz, A professor of communication at the University of New Hampshire, comments about his students: ‘They tend to have an image-based standard of truth. If I ask them, ‘What evidence supports your view or contradicts it?’ they look at me as if I came from another planet.’ Why is this? ‘It’s very foreign to them to think in terms of truth, logic, consistency and evidence.”
C.S. Lewis in Screwtape Letters, articulates a fictional example of this principle, “Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but as ‘academic’ or ‘practical,’ ‘outworn’ or ‘contemporary,’ ‘conventional or ‘ruthless.’’ Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.”
Does involvement with the technology serve to replace our involvement with reality?
Yes. Quite obviously. There is a tendency for people to start thinking of themselves and others in terms of their online personalities. As Groothius points out throughout his book The Soul In Cyberspace, many people develop a whole other life on-line and some even end up being unable to separate their on-line identity from their real one. Recent movies such as the The Matrix and Bicentennial Man serve to further blur this already fuzzy line.
So what must be done now? In reviewing the answers to these questions, a grim picture is painted for cyberspace. And although others might answer certain questions differently, it is doubtful that their outcome would be much different than this one. It can be seen that in some instances the outcome is based on the usage, and in other instances the outcome is built into the fabric of the technology itself. Humanity (Christianity especially) should be wary of those instances where the usage is already determined by the technology itself and not by the usage. As has already been established, all technologies carry with them a set of values and principles that will guide their usage.
The question at hand is what to do with this information? And the answer, while simplistic, is that each person must come to his or her own conclusion and then set a course of action based on that conclusion, no matter the cost.
posted by Kevin at 4/28/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Six
METHODOLOGY
Genesis 1:28 requires that Christians "fill the earth and subdue it." But how are we to subdue technology? ... and is it even possible??
Romans 12:2 says to not "be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Christians have a cultural mandate, meaning that men and women as cultural agents have been placed in creation in order to bring creation to its full development. Therefore society, and especially Christians, has a responsibility to use good judgment in the creation and use of technology. How does this happen though?
The only true guide in deciding what is positive technology and what is negative is God's will and norms for humanity. Using this guide, everyone is called to love God above everything else in life as well as love our neighbors as ourselves. To follow that guide is to be in the world but not of the world. Therefore the starting point for valuing technology is no longer human speculation but the will of God.
There is, of course, no exact set of Biblical principles or guidelines with which to evaluate all technologies by. And while many guidelines could be listed, there are several that rise to the top and present themselves as being of utmost importance. The following questions should at least stimulate thought and discussion, and provide a general framework to begin thinking about technology in a more biblical way. Throughout the discussion, continue to remember the statements and principles listed in the worldview that was laid out in the previous section.
Almost needless to say, technologies that fail (or have the potential to fail) several of the following categories, should be handled very carefully if not avoided entirely.
Does this technology displace life to our detriment?
Does it stand in opposition to any part of our stated worldview? What are the possibilities that this technology could hurt (physically, emotionally, or spiritually) more than it could ever help? Does it make life tougher to live? Does it move us further away from God? If a technology is so pervasive that the very core of everyday living must be reevaluated, then is it still beneficial to upsetting these traditions for the sake of money, prestige or progress? Remember that one of technology's most pervasive lies is that progress and efficiency are desirable above all else.
Does this technology wound our soul?
According to Charles Ryrie, the soul can refer to the whole person . . . can designate the immaterial part of a person with its many feelings and emotions; an important focus of spiritual redemption and growth." In other words, does this technology hinder our communion with God? Technological knowledge will many times "squeeze out the need for, and time to pursue, spiritual knowledge." One can learn just as much about a person by watching what they spend their time doing as one can by watching what they spend their money on. The greatest commandment states that God is to be loved with all of the heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:36). Letting something get in the way of this relationship is akin to interfering with the highest purpose in life. This bond between Creator and created is something that should be guarded with utmost devotion and fervor, yet many times it becomes one of the lowest priorities on the Christian's "to-do" list, and technology is not making it any easier or better.
Does this technology dehumanize our culture?
Something that removes the human qualities or attributes from culture can be said to dehumanize it. More specifically on the basis of our worldview, something that removes or renders useless our praise and glorify God could be said to dehumanize our culture. As culture is modernized through the increased use of technology, thinking will be done more and more by technology. Will this deprive joy, creativity, and pride of accomplishment from humanity? Is it truly better to have a machine do the thinking and work instead of a human being? Does it serve to make it tougher for us to fulfill the Great Commission?
Does this technology erode connections of embodied personal relationships?
Does this technology promote unhealthy relationships? It is, of course, obvious that using e-mail to confer with somebody on the other side of the planet may be the only way to communicate, but what about family and friends who live several blocks away that might otherwise be contacted by visit or phone? The problem arises not when technology is the only way to communicate, but when it is used in place of embodied personal relationships. Although the Bible, of course, does not comment on whether telephone or e-mail is more appropriate, Christians should be wary of technologies that break down human interaction with each other. The greatest reason for concern is that to effectively lead people to conversion and through discipleship, personal contact is a necessity. God places a priority on this. He promotes a local body of believers, the Church, and in Paul's example we constantly see his letters to the churches as being supplemental to his personal (face-to-face) ministry with them.
Does this technology displace the church's position in society?
The importance of the church to God's plan for today's society cannot be overstated. The church is Christ's bride and is his main work in today's world. Matthew 16:18 records Christ as saying, "I will build My church." Any technology that lessens the church's impact on the world, or makes its work harder, can be said to be in direct conflict with the stated will of God for this age. This should not be taken lightly.
Does this technology replace or disrupt anything good that already exists?
This includes family and community relationships. It is sometimes easy to buy into the notion that because something can be done it should be done. Current day America would have its citizens believe that the way to Utopia is self-actualization through efficiency and progress. It teaches that just because something is good, it doesn't mean that it is good enough. This attitude is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible. In Philippians 4:11 Paul tells us that he has learned "in whatever state I am, be content." Further, in Hebrews 13:5 the audience is told to "let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have.'
Does this technology serve to render the God of the Bible irrelevant?
If it is true that technology has become a god, then it follows that God has been relegated to a lower position. The elevation of one god necessarily requires the demotion of another. This, of course, is nothing less than idolatry. A.W. Tozer held that "a right conception of God is basic not only to systematic theology, but to practical Christian living as well." He argued that "the essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of him." So therefore it follows that the heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until it is once more worthy of Him and of her. In all her prayers and labors this should have first place.
Has this technology been thoroughly evaluated on the basis of pros and cons?
This seems simple enough, but often only the pros of a situation are considered and the negatives are ignored. The negatives do eventually show themselves, but many times only after irreversible damage has been done. A little foresight and investigation at the get-go might solve a lot of problems.
Does this technology destroy our view of truth and meaning?
For Christianity, God and His Word are the sole basis and authority for truth and meaning. Isaiah 65:16 refers to God as the "God of truth" (see also Deuteronomy 32:4). Without a clear sense of right and wrong, there can be no direction in life. Without absolutes, there can be no truth or meaning.
Does involvement with the technology serve to replace our involvement with reality?
Many people in today's culture are obsessed with being something they are not. People are using games such as Doom and Dungeons and Dragons to fulfill fantasies, and ICQ, an Internet chat world, is teeming with people who pose as people they are not. It is a sad commentary on life when existence has such a lack of direction and is so meaningless that the unreal is seen as a more desirable alternative than reality.
posted by Kevin at 4/27/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Five
WORLDVIEW
When considering a way in which to review technology, one must be sure that he is not getting a distorted perspective. Otherwise his outcomes might be skewed. For this reason it is necessary to be sure that before a methodology is laid out, we are reviewing the questions on the basis of a comprehensive, consistent, and cogent worldview. The problem is that in American culture the pillars that once upheld a Christian world and life view--one which saw God as a moving, controlling, law-establishing being--were destroyed.
All technology should be evaluated on the basis of a theologically-sound Christian worldview. According to James W. Sire, Senior Editor for InterVarsity Press, a worldview "is a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of our world." The following seven questions are foundational to any worldview and are critical to deriving a correct methodology to assess technology.
1. What is prime reality - the really real?
Or basically, what is the most important thing in actual existence? God. In Psalm 47:2&8, He is “great King over all the earth,” and he “sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.” God is “above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods” according to Psalm 97:9.
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
External reality is a derivation of prime reality. God “commanded, and they [external reality] were created.” He “hath also established them for ever and ever” and all external reality serves to “fulfill his word” (Psalm148:5,6,8). External reality should not affect a Christian’s relationship with God adversely, but it should always be helping to improve it. Psalm 65 says that all nature gives praise to God in a visual expression and points to his existence. Humans should do the same.
3. What is a human being?
A creation of God whose purpose is to praise and glorify him (Psalm 100). Man is weak and mortal on one hand, but possesses a dignity and glory second only to God on the other (Psalm 8:4). There is great responsibility to God implied throughout the Bible.
4. What happens to a person at death?
Whatever the individual chooses to happen. The Bible is clear that there are two options for existence in the after-life, Heaven or Hell. Psalm 48:14 reminds that “God [is] our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even to death.” According to Psalm 25:2, the key to heaven is to find salvation in God for he is the God “of my salvation.” Forgiveness of sins and a commitment to God (Christ) is what is necessary. Death is only the beginning… life continues for an eternity thereafter.
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
God’s grace makes it possible to know anything at all. The psalmist admits in Psalm 119:93 that he “will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me.” Man can know, according to Psalm 145:6-7, because God chooses for him to know. To what end? “Men shall . . . declare Your greatness. They shall abundantly utter the memory of Your great goodness.” God gives to men the grace to have knowledge and memory for God’s own glory! There is always a reason to worship Him when His attributes are remembered.
6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
God invested himself into his creation and nothing he created was originally in opposition to who He was, therefore man was created with an instinct of the creator and his attributes. Although the fall meant that God’s creation was to be, in essence, in opposition to who he is, there is still an intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong built into every man. Because of who God is, man can know right/truth. “Show me Your ways, O Lord; Teach me Your paths. Lead me in Your truth and teach me, For You are the God of my salvation; On You I wait all the day . . . Good and upright is the Lord” (Psalm 25:4-6,8a). According to this passage, God is the divine standard of right, which logically leads to the fact that he is also the divine standard for wrong. This being so, his revelation, the Bible, may also be considered truth. “All Your commands are righteous” and “the entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:172,160).
7. What is the meaning of human history?
Human history is a reminder. Throughout Psalms, and the Bible, Israel’s history is repeated as reminder of God and His involvement. Israel is asked to “remember his marvelous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth” so that they might “observe his statutes, and keep his laws” (Psalm 105:5,45). The purpose is not just remembrance, but also to serve as a catalyst for change, leading Christians as it did Israel to a closer relationship with God through thanksgiving, praise, and worship.
A properly formed worldview, based upon God's normative principles and standards, is necessary for deriving correct principles for handling technology. In considering where to take a stand on any issue, especially significant ones, we must be sure that God is the starting point of all things. Humans were created for the express purpose of giving praise and glory to God, and our lives should be lived in light of eternity. It is by God's grace that we exist and are the highest order of creation.
We can know truth. Accordingly, with God there are absolute standards of right and wrong. Building on this foundation, it becomes possible to look closer at technology in our environment and how God's normative principles come to bear on it.
posted by Kevin at 4/26/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Monday, April 25, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Four
SCIENTISM
Technology is our god.
Although many of us would never admit that statement to be true, an honest review of culture reveals that technology has been placed in a position that was historically reserved for God. Technology has become a faith, a new religion. It has become a viable alternative to faith in God... and worse, even a worthy companion to faith in God.
There is a God-shaped hole in every person; there is in each of us, a piece missing that only something larger than ourselves can fill. When society removed God and His Word from that position, something was needed to replace it...
Scientism is the illusory belief that some standardized set of procedures called 'science' can provide us with an unimpeachable source of moral authority.
The Christian God is dead and His normative principles are long forgotten; America has become a nation whose God is progress, efficiency, and precision. People are now convinced that they must make their own way through life relying on reason and the empowerment that science and technology provide. "We need so desperately to find some source outside the frail and shaky judgments of mortals like ourselves to authorize our moral decisions and behavior," says Dr. Neil Postman.
The problem with using science to fill this hole is obvious, it's woefully inadequate to do so. Science might be able to measure when a heart begins to beat, but it cannot report when life begins. Death can be determined by science, but it cannot explain why there is loss of life and suffering. Science cannot differentiate between right and wrong, or good and evil, because it cannot persuade or tell a person how to think, feel, and behave.
To put faith in science is to believe that precise knowledge is preferable to truthful knowledge. Science does not hold the key to the door of truth, yet Americans continue to look to science for answers to questions that only God can respond.
Science and technologies provide no adequate philosophies to live by... yet they rule our lives.
posted by Kevin at 4/25/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Three
TECHNOLOGICAL VALUES
Postmodern ideologies control current American thought. Society has become skeptical, if not defensive, of explanations that claim to be valid for all groups of people. According to the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, postmodern thought generally "denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a religious truth which will explain everything for everybody."
Postmodernism has so skewed society and even Christendom's perspective that the statement "Technology is neither good nor bad, but neutral" will seem true to many. Technology, in this scenario, is valueless. Values, they would say, are only attached in the use of the technology. What those who hold this belief fail to recognize is that the presence of human will in the doing of technology effectively meshes valuing and technology.
Everyone has values.
Values permeate a person's being. The presuppositions we hold in life are formed out of our core values. These values decide what we believe and how we live our lives. Everyone has a set of conscious and subconscious values that guide every step in life.
For example, "to do" is to make a value judgment that something is worth doing. "Not to do" is also a judgment of value.
Values direct all human effort, but society tends to ignore this fact entirely. Valuing in today's society says that when one likes something then, and only then, is value attached to it. "Value is what people are willing to pay for," says John Naisbitt in his popular work 'Megatrends.' However, this emotive approach is not a thorough enough standard for defining value. To gain a true understand of value one must move beyond this approach.
Technology is not neutral. Concepts, problems, and their solutions cannot exist in a presuppositionless vacuum. Says Monsma, "technology proceeds out of the entire human experience and is affected by the confessional, religious commitments unique to human beings."
Technology is the product of the value-driven actions of human beings and is therefore value-laden. Technology proceeds out of the whole human experience and is the inevitable by-product of the values of human beings. From initial idea, design, production, and use, technology is value-laden. More specifically, any technological object, therefore, embodies decisions to develop one kind of knowledge and not another, to use certain resources and not others, to use energy in a certain form and quantity. There is no purely neutral or technical justification for all these decisions. Instead, they involve conceptions of the world that are related to such issues as permissible uses, good stewardship, and justice: they involve, in other words, human valuing.
But that is just the beginning of the problem. Our decision to neglect dealing with the value-laden nature of technology has consequently granted it a kind of autonomy.
posted by Kevin at 4/24/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part Two
DEFINING TECHNOLOGY
In today's culture "technology" is a word that nearly defies definition, its scope so broad and usage so diverse that any definition is almost assuredly inadequate. The Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship argues that a proper definition of technology must do three things: (1) properly distinguish between technological and other human activities; (2) provide a basis for analyzing the difference between premodern and modern technology; (3) be derived from a Christian viewpoint on reality and human interaction with technology.
Using these criteria, I define technology as a disctinct human cultural activity in which human beings exercise freedom and responsibility in response to God by forming and transforming the natural creation, with the aid of tools and procedures, for practical ends or purposes.
Here's how the definition fits the criteria:
Criterion #1 : Properly distinguish between technological and
other human activities.
Portion of Definition : "forming and transforming the natural creation, with the aid of tools and procedures, for practical ends or purposes"
Rationale : Technological objects--both tools and products--are unique. They combine specific resources--know-how, materials, and energy--into unique
entities with unique sets of properties and capabilities. (Monsma,"Responsible")
Criterion #2 : Provide a basis for analyzing the difference between premodern and modern technology.
Portion of Definition : "a distinct human cultural activity" and "forming and transforming the natural creation"
Rationale : The main point of distinction centers on why, and with what mindset and goal, technology is created and used. In modern times, technology's creation and use carries an entirely different set of goals, values, and ethics than it did in pre-modern times.
Criterion #3 : Be derived from a Christian viewpoint on reality and human interaction with technology.
Portion of definition : "exercise freedom and responsibility in response to God"
Rationale : Colossians 3:17 requires that everything we do, whether in action or speech, be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to Father God through Him. God has given mankind the ability to create and use technology, so therefore mankind has a responsibility to Him to use it wisely and within His guidelines. Humanity must be a good steward of the resources He has given. This is the most critical part of the definition because it requires Christianity to be sure that all technology created or used is done within a Biblical framework.
The problem should be obvious... but in case it is not... Our abuse of the first two criteria has made the third criterion nearly impossible to follow. We can no longer control technology within the framework of a Biblical worldview because technology now controls us and our worldview.
In effect, we forgot (and many times ignored) the fact that technologies, to a certain extent, impose on the user the way in which they are to be used.
posted by Kevin at 4/23/2005 12:00:00 AM
Comments
[]
Friday, April 22, 2005
Technology Run Amok - Part One
THE QUESTION
Earth is a fallen world. There is no doubt about that. But in a culture that is infected to the core by postmodernism, it is sometimes easy to believe that things are getting better. We've become more accepting of differing viewpoints, cultural diversity is the rule rather than the exception,...
...and technology has seemingly enhanced the quality of life. In fact, it might even be said that technology has become the litmus test for 'quality of life' at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
Has technology become the god of postmodern America? Many anthropologists and theologians think so. But is it the savior? From a Christian perspective, the answer is an easy one: No. But in a culture that reveres everything but Christian ideals, how can the Church ever hope to prove that technology is not the answer to all of the world's problems? And more importantly... is even modern Christendom itself convinced that technology is not the answer to most (if not all) problems?
Dr. Robert Pyne, Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary says, "Technology has given us control over life and death, or so we would like to think, and in that sense it makes us feel powerful."
Technology requires trust and dependence to survive and thrive, but does not openly show the heavy price that many times comes with it. Due to technology's pervasiveness in today's culture it is many times overlooked and simply accepted as being a critical part of the fabric of our lives. It's been around for so long and become so entwined with daily living that a close examination of its own problems and outcomes is, by many, deemed unnecessary.
HISTORICALLY
In the Middle Ages, theology stood by the principle that all goodness and knowledge comes from God and, because of that fact, all human effort and enterprise must be directed toward the service of God. "Theology, not technology, provided people with authorization for what to do or think," says Neil Postman, former Chair of the Department of Arts and Sciences at New York University. During this time period theological principles guided cultural direction and whatever tools were invented had to fit within this theologically-formed ideology. Therefore (as Postman points out) most cultures in the Middle Ages were either theocratic or were controlled by some theory or belief in a power higher than themselves.
For example, Benedictine monks who wanted to keep better track of the canonical hours for prayer and devotion created the first mechanical clock sometime in the twelfth or thirteenth century. The bells of the monastery were to be rung to signify the canonical hours and the invention of the clock provided, more or less, routine and regularity to their schedule. But the monks could not have imagined how their invention would change the face of society. By the mid-fourteenth century, the clock had been introduced outside of the monasteries and thus began to bring regularity of life to all people. This invention which was intended to help men devote themselves more wholly to God was now being used to further the economic interests of men. Eventually, King Charles IV ordered all of Paris to regulate their lives by the Royal Palace clock which rung every sixty minutes. The order included all churches and monasteries and was issued in complete disregard to the canonical hours.
This is just one example of technology, driven by material interests, gaining cultural dominion over spiritual interests.
The printing press was another technological innovation that facilitated a formerly unrealized ability to exert great force on the direction of culture. The printing press served to topple the previous form of information dissemination, the written word, thus creating a whole new way to transfer information from one person to another, the printed word. The printing press was the most significant and culturally revolutionary invention of its time, and one of the most significant of all time. In the theological discipline alone the printing press toppled the standards of its day. The impact of the Bibles it enabled to be printed and the propaganda it enabled to be distributed cannot be overstated. The printing press increased the flow of information in society to a level that had not been duplicated until the invention of cyberspace.
The difference between the technologies of then and now is who is in control of whom. Past technological innovations have been controlled by their inventor, government, and many times society. While the introduction of a new technology inevitably changes customs and places a new emphasis on areas of life once deemed unimportant, it can be said that, for the most part, technologies of the past were more controllable. Humanity's sense of right and wrong, guided by biblically-based morality, served as a controlling factor in the creation and use of technology. And although technology did change the face of culture in past generations, the worldview that allowed the creation of that technology was very different than the worldviews of today.
In today's society, technology does most of the controlling. It has been given free reign to determine societal direction and is almost universally considered to be a good thing... no questions asked.
posted by Kevin at 4/22/2005 10:48:00 AM
Comments
[]
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Abstract
Technologies are NOT neutral.
... in many circles of people, those are fighting words. Just like journalists like to believe that there is such a thing as 'complete unbias', media people like to believe that their technologies are nuetral in nature.
But consider a few examples: The inventor of the stirrup did not know that his 'new technology' would change the nature of warfare, but it did. Gutenberg did not know that his printing press would fuel the likes of the Reformation. Samuel Morse didn't know that his telegraph would turn our concept of useful information upside down.
But all of these technological advances, employed without consideration of the technology's values, possibilities, and implications, eventually had their way and ran amuck. They accomplished what they intended, but had far reaching ramifications beyond their original intentions.
Somewhere along the way, society ceased pursuing technology as a means-to-an-end and began pursuing it for it's own sake. It became our idol and we worshipped at it's altar in hopes it would bring quality, precision, success, and value to our lives. "We went from employing technology to do the jobs we want done, to pursuing technology for its own sake in the hope that benefits will result, to establishing technology as the standard by which all things are measured. Technologies used to be our tools, employed or ignored as we saw fit. Now they have become our gods, and we serve their goals."
Join me (or don't) over the next few days as I expound on this foundation, gleaned partially from my Master's Thesis work ("Theological Implications of a Technological Culture") and study/experience in media theology.
Quote taken from "Technopoly", Neil Postman.
posted by Kevin at 4/21/2005 11:34:00 PM
Comments
[]
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
I M A G I N E - Part Three
Imagine a world without media, as we know it. Imagine a church without technology, as we currently perceive it.
What does your job look like? How do you fit into your church's paradigm? What talents, skills, experiences, education, and work ethic might you need to survive?
Many of us never asked ourselves these questions about our current media ministry position. We shouldn't make that mistake again.
As media in society changes, media in the church will change. As media in the church changes, only those people equipped for a new season of ministry will survive. Are you prepared?
Have you adequately educated yourself both in the functions of your job and the business of the church? I know a lot of talented media guys who are crummy ministers. I know a lot of ministers who are clueless media men. I know very few who have a knack for both. Have we assigned that away because we say that we are not so gifted or does it really boil down to a failure to properly prepare for the task of working on a church staff. Doctors go to school for decades, Senior Pastors almost as long. We balk at having to spend two years getting an Associate's degree, thinking we should be worth our wages simply because we know the difference between an audio board and a hole in the ground.
Are you thinking of yourself or thinking of your church? I am convinced that the bulk of the problems associated with church staff are directly related to our ability to be selfless rather than self-centered.
Are you forward-thinking or tradition-keeping? I am the first person (behind Christ) to realize, accept, and promote the place of tradition in Christendom. But Christ never participated in or promoted a tradition that had become ineffective our lauded an errant set of ideals. If don't remain on the bleeding-edge of societal and cultural shifts, we run the risk of irrelevance (and unemployment if we are in a production-oriented position, such as media).
Are we keeping good company? Be wary of the associations you keep. They will either help you maximize your fruit production or leave you barren, possibly without even realizing it.
Are we evangelizing? And isn't this the point? Shouldn't we be doing our darndest to fulfill the Great Commission. I am loathe of awards, associations, ministries, and churches that deplenish my ability to reach the lost.
----------------
So to my fellow media gurus of the world... be wary! Your run of the church is over. Partially because of your inability to pay the price necessary for long-term effectiveness, but mostly because of the changing tides associated with cultural shifts and unforeseen societal 'advances'.
There is no reason to cry over spilt milk though!
Stay the course, keep the faith, but be aware as well as wary!! Find new ways to 'program' the gospel message, realize what your 'position' really is, and keep the focus on 'the (empty) pew'.
Godspeed folks. There isn't much time....
posted by Kevin at 4/19/2005 11:10:00 PM
Comments
[]
I M A G i n e - Part Two
Imagine there's no church media,
It's easy if you try,
No IMAG among us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
could not caring less...
Media Ministers had their chance. They had their opportunity but they dropped the ball at precisely the same moment that everything changed in 'mass media' as we know it.
There was a time in the church when media was the 'next big thing'. Then there was a time when it was the shizzle. Now media is, at best, old news... and, at worst, dead.
And what do mostchurch Media Departments have to show for it? Nothing.
I am gonna explain that argument by way of commenting on the state of church media as it relates to three arenas: programming, position, and the pew.
Programming. In Part One I outlined the logic behind the death of mass media as we know it. Obviously, there will be ways that content and advertising reach the consumer. We are not going to see the end of visual and aural programming. What we WILL see is the end of most religious programming, at least, religious programming that is trying to reach the unreached. If we cannot broadcast our message in a forum that reaches the mass unreached, then we'll cease to be able to use this medium to get out our message. Imagine Billy Graham trying to reach thousands without the opportunity to locate a facility large enough to hold more than one or two people. If it weren't for radio, television, and stadiums, none of us would know the name Billy Graham. It is possible (if not probable) that Joel Osteen is the last of the mass media pioneers. Church broadcasts will find it increasingly difficult to reach viewers... this will come in direct proportion to the ability the viewer has to manage his programming content.
Position. As members of church staff, we suck. Obviously, I am painting with a broad brush here... and not everyone belongs in this category. But most of us do. Do you remember that kid in school that thought he knew all of the answers and typically just ended up making a fool of himself in the midst of his pride and ego? I remember a few of those. I've seen a lot more in church media than I ever saw in education.
We believed our own press. We got ahead ourselves, became full of ourselves, and thereby diminished ourselves. We had the chance to be peers with our Pastors... earn the opportunity to have an opinion... but we lost the right because we didn't earn it or respect it. We thought we deserved it.
"We are media Ministers!", we said. "We possess the only effective means of communicating a message in this day and age!", a statement we believed in our hearts and eventually professed with our lips. We thereby committed heresy by lifting the 'medium' as high as the 'message'... and oft times higher.
Harsh words, I know. Spoken in love, you must hear me say.
Many of us sealed our own fate by not being worthy of our calling. We eschewed education, spit in the face of quality, scoffed at the idea of responsibility, and ran rampant in our churches for awhile. Now we are seeing the denouement of media and we have only ourselves to blame. We thought of ourselves more highly than we ought.
We were once the caretakers of an emerging technology in a retreating church. Now we are the undertakers of a retreating technology in an emergent church.
The Pew. Our lazy and errant ways on the previous two points have diminished our impact even within the walls of the church. Our pastors and leaders are finding other ways to communicate, other mediums to transmit a message. Much of that is our fault. We wanted all of the glory, but none of the sacrifice.
We'll see old methods of communication (like print, writing, drama, music, and the spoken word) reclaim much of the ground it once had. Other forms of communication, possibly technological in nature, possibly not, will come along and take our sanctuaries by storm. Hopefully they will be better guardians of their mediums than we were of ours.
-----------
There is much change coming on the horizon of the church. Media cannot help but be irreparably affected by it. We forgot that the church made it almost 2 millennia without our help. And sadly, they'll probably make it much further (and much faster) without us.
posted by Kevin at 4/19/2005 10:07:00 PM
Comments
[]
I m a g i n e - Part One
"It's the end of media as we know it, and I feel fine."
When I was in High School, I took several media courses. They were all classified under a designation simply titled: mass media. It was an umbrella meant to include multiple communication disciplines (at that time primarily radio and television). It carried with it the idea of "public communication reaching a large audience". For decades, its been the holy grail of communication. In reality, its been the holy grail of society. If a culture was to survive the last century they must worship at its altar.
Mass media changed the world... It changed our country. It changed our churches. It changed us.
The twentieth century afforded us the first real option for communication beyond the interpersonal. Until that time, there was no decent means whereby which one could 'broadcast' a singular message to a 'mass' of people. Media afforded us that luxury.
Christians were some of the first people to take advantage of those opportunities. Oral Roberts and Robert Schuller were among early pioneers. To varying degrees, the church has always seen mass media as effective tool for evangelization. Content and quality notwithstanding, they were probably correct.
Here's the rub: Mass media as we know it is dying... maybe even dead.
When was the last time you heard that term ('mass media') used in legitimate conversation. Even the word 'broadcasting' is on life support. Those of us who've made media our life's study and work are noticing extreme cultural shifts in media' consumption. There is a backlash against broadcasting and mass media that's been fueled by media glut and gluttony. We could blame it on Ad Execs and Network Bigwigs... but its really our own fault. We excessively indulged ourselves in media outlets (such as radio, television, internet, publishing, etc.), reached the point of extreme saturation, and then found ourselves at the dawn of the twenty-first century full, but unfilled.
Yes, I submit we'll never see another new form of 'mass media' ever invented or implemented. We don't want to watch one of the 'Big Three' networks, we'd rather get satellite or cable with a TiVo attached so we can filter the content a bit. On-Demand programming is just around the corner. Radio is scared crapless at the thought of satellite radio taking over. And Programming Execs (especially advertisers) are beside themselves over the coming wave of podcasts and the like.
There are now technologies becoming available that will allow me to filter my content, rather than otherpeople deciding what I want on the basis of demographics, ratings, and advertising dollars.
For the consumer, it's Heaven on earth.
For those of us who've put all of our eggs in the proverbial 'mass media basket', not even Dante's seventh circle of Hell holds a candle to the punishment we're about to endure.
CLEAR!
posted by Kevin at 4/19/2005 08:51:00 PM
Comments
[]
Saturday, April 16, 2005
college and career
No one has yet to figure out a better designation for that 18-to-20-something age group. So the old faithful standby is to simply say 'college and career'.
It's an odd age group to work with... but one which I love. Their young enough to still be malleable, yet old enough to have lost a bit of their youthful rebellion. By this age they seem to have learnt that their future success is directly proportional to their current dedication--even if they haven't yet figured out exactly what it takes to make that leap.
Some have said that this age group should be split into two separate ministries. Their thesis is that there are wildly divergent problems and issues facing college-aged students than those who've successfully moved beyond that age. I see the point, but I respectfully disagree.
I think it's a good idea for these two age groups to learn from each other. College kids need the wisdom and direction that a 'career' person can provide, and the career kids need the motivation, energy, and seemingly unbounded hope that college kids possess.
All in all, I've learned a lot. But for me, the lesson has been how much more is needed--how much more terrain must be covered on their behalf. At this age their problems are harder, their wounds deeper, and their relational needs greater. They are just as likely to clam up as they are to spill their guts, you just gotta be in the right place at the right time.
I'm loving the opportunity to be involved in it, and I pray God will bring along others to raise the standard alongside me.
posted by Kevin at 4/16/2005 02:03:00 PM
Comments
[]
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The Desert
Got the opportunity to speak again in church tonight... what an amazing experience. This makes the third time in four months I've been afforded the chance to preach during a main service. Having been recently placed on the Teaching Team I suppose I'll probably have further opportunity.
My dad said something a long time ago that has stuck with me: "Don't take the pulpit lightly." This statement makes me smile because, oddly enough, I am currently enjoying the opportunity to speak from a stool. When was the last time you saw a preacher sit down while delivering a message? Well, if you are a member at Mountaintop it was probably me and I really enjoyed it! But the principle still applies, I guess... and I stand behind it. (the principle, not the pulpit). LOL.
Several people told me afterwards how much what I said meant to them. That is always one of the most enjoyable parts... seeing how what God is teaching me can also teach others. "P" told me that I am part of a new breed of communicators. I think he meant that as a compliment. HAHAHAHA. But I do feel that it definitely takes an entirely different approach than I was raised with to effectively cut through the noise and say something that people will remember for more than 5 minutes.
I am only just beginning to understand what that means. Sometime I will outline my initial observations more fully. But of this I am sure: A message must be felt. If it has not 'captured' me, it will not capture those to whom I preach. If I am not captivated by the central idea, my audience will not be either.
Anyway. I'm enjoying the opportunity to get to speak more often and I hope it continues. More than that though, I hope that I can continue to remain close enough to God to hear His still, small voice and then communicate it from the platform.
posted by Kevin at 4/13/2005 11:44:00 PM
Comments
[]
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Way to Go
Why I read these things, I have no idea....
I've actually read this website for years. Initially, I did so to see how many topics/opinions I disagreed with. Eventually I read it to try and follow some of the names/faces/places of a legalistic life God released me from. Now, I simply read it because it makes me smile.
The folowing brightened my day because I actually applied to the church a year ago. And this paragraph from Calvary Contender makes me love Purcellville all the more:
COLLABORATIVE SERMONS—At Purcellville (Va.) Baptist Church, Rev. David Janney meets with a worship planning team several hours every Wed. He typically shows them a draft several days before he plans to deliver a sermon (Houston Chronicle). Some quotes from the Ala. Baptist on postmodern preachers: “We're facing a transition.” “Evangelical worship has seen a lot of changes.” “I don't think we will have master oratory much longer.” “Preaching [may] shift from the linear style to the storyteller—like Jesus, who spoke in parables,” “Contemplation and meditation may invade the sermon.”
posted by Kevin at 4/07/2005 11:38:00 PM
Comments
[]
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Job Opening
My job description here at the church is changing a bit, so that means an opening for a Director of Communications.
Job Description (PDF) : download here
Website : www.mountaintopchurch.com
More info : Churchstaffing's website
posted by Kevin at 4/06/2005 04:42:00 PM
Comments
[]
back focus
convergence
of importance
links
Who Links Here