FW: What are you doing with books?

For those of you who didn’t know, I run another blog. It was started last summer for classroom purposes, but has morphed into the blog I actually maintain most often. It’s mostly a media-focused blog, but this week I posted some of my thoughts on what it means to live in a culture where technology is the rage, yet we neglect the fact that while technology is advancing, a large number of individuals still struggle with finding the money, time, or ability to read. Sure we can create e-readers and iPads for the people who can afford them, but can we use our smarts for other purposes too? Here’s the post below. You can follow this link to find my other blog. Enjoy.

In a generation when theory is hotter than action and technological innovations are the rage (as long as their producers keep producing when hot technology goes cold), I find myself stepping back and asking why.

Why did Apple create the iPad? And, why can’t we like it? Why does Amazon seem to care more about moneythan reading, literacy or making books more accessible?

Talking to some local teachers, I’ve learned that students in under-served schools are not allowed to take their textbooks home. In a public school system that thrives on standardized test scores, how can students be expected learn the test-specific material written into their textbooks (that’s supposed to help them pass these tests) if they’re not allowed to read them outside of the classroom? And, how are teachers supposed to keep their jobs when their students continue to fail these tests?

As far as I know, pay-by-the-chapter e-books can become one of the most affordable ways for people to purchase textbook content when you remove the e-reader platform that everyone is so set on perfecting from the picture. I know putting e-readers in classrooms won’t solve the problem anymore than allowing kids to take home their physical textbooks. I also know that allowing teachers to print out copies of book chapters for their students to take home isn’t yet feasible due to the cost of paper and other printing materials.

But, with technology moving as quickly as it is, why are media giants looking to please big business while allowing those without $900 to spend on technology to be left out? I don’t have the answers, but recently I’ve been trying to figure out how we can change things in the publishing industry.

For the six of you who actually read this blog, it would be great to hear some feedback on this one. Thanks.

Reading the Bible (Part 1)

After Sunday school a couple weeks ago, I started thinking about what it really means to read the Bible, and I came upon one of the articles at the end of my ESV Study Bible. The following is a basic summary that has helped me out. I’ll continue posting thoughts on studying scripture.

While we often focus on reading the Bible as a way to gain valuable moral insight, to learn more about the mysterious will of God, or simply seek its practical meaning for ourselves, one of the other very important purposes of the scriptures is to provide an avenue through which we can commune, communicate, or have community with God. Because we are sinful, communion with God cannot be grasped without his initiation. Therefore, communion with God begins with God’s presentation of himself to us and our response. That God would even initiate such a process is true occasion for joy. And, if our own joy weren’t reason enough to commune with God, the Bible tells us that such communion allows us to be fully satisfied with God and his steadfast love (Psalm 90:14).

Such communion is not possible without the salvation we receive through Christ, and, therefore, the Bible’s central message is the Gospel – that through Jesus, God saved you. The Bible is the final authority on such claims to salvation while also recounting history in a way that has been fully inspired by God. The Bible is necessary for Christian communion with God because it provides the true picture of God, one we are unable to craft in our own times of “spirituality.” It reveals God’s promises, commands, warnings, and descriptions of himself that tell us who God really is. And when we begin to understand these truths, we’re called to respond in specific ways.

This back and forth initiation-response between ourselves and God shows that reading the Bible is not just a matter of gaining valuable information, but one of the primary ways we communicate with God. Just read 1 John 1:3.

As you read the Bible, have in mind the thought that these written words are God’s voice speaking to you. Allow yourself to speak back to God about the things you are reading. If you are confused or lost, tell God. If you are convicted, ask God to give you the strength to act. Prayer does not have to be complicated, long, aloud, or even comprehensible.

Always remember that reading scripture is a primary means of brining glory to God, which leads to our joy. As we grow, we’re charged with speaking to others about the truths God has presented us through the Bible as well as praying for (1) the church, (2) the spread of the Gospel, and (3) the salvation of those who might hear the Gospel.

Everyone pays sometime

I’ve been meeting with a good friend to tell stories, talk about writing, and remember the things I’d long forgotten within the influx of Dostoyevsky, descriptive statistics, and mass society theories clouding my cognitive capabilities over the past few months.

This morning, I remembered anew a series of events I, at one time, told myself I could never forget.  After ruminating on why I like old Derek Webb better than new Derek  Webb, I was reminded that one of the reasons this statement is so true is because I have yet to spend more than a few e-mail suggestions and shards of dignity for any of his albums.  And when it comes to free music, I believe I’m more than willing to sacrifice dignity for the sake of entertainment.

It makes me American.

This story begins with my “employment” as a summer inter at WAY-FM Nashville, or just WAYM to us.  They “hired” me on as the publicity department, which, by the end of my 10-week stent, consisted of me and another intern from Chicagoland.

At one point, the late-night show host (Wally) decided to use me as fodder for the comedy he was putting out to encourage teenage boys, and everyone else who happened to listen, to act as if they were, in fact, teenage boys.  Of course, this could only mean that the on-air sketch I was going to be used for would have something to do with dating.

Nothing could have been more true, as I found myself asking out one of Wally’s on-air interns.  Live.  Heard by thousands across the nation.

She said, “No,” and I think Wally was the only person caught off guard in the studio that night.  Only God knows why I would give up Tuesday-night RUF for that crap.

As it turned out, Betty (the intern) missed a sweet show that weekend, as I did actually have free tickets to Billy Currington at the Wild Horse Saloon.  I don’t care who you are, how long you’ve lived in Nashville, or how much of a country freak you claim to be, but free Billy Currington is always better than anything else you could be doing – including dating.

Regardless, after the weekend fun had worn off, I returned to work Monday and found a package from INO Records on my desk.  In addition to a well-versed sympathy note, it contained a number of albums from INO artists including, Phil Wickham, P.O.D., and, of course, Derek Webb’s She Must and Shall Go Free.

I learned a lot that summer.  RUF Belmont is the perfect Christian community especially when you spend weekday evenings playing Munchkin while the pastor’s kids beat each other up over Mario Kart Wii.  Christian radio is a lot more fun that its name implies especially when you can drive the WAY-FM detailed van to the Wolfgang Puck restaurant down the street (provided you’re on the insurance).  Even if you get turned down live on the air, you will always have enough dignity left to press on especially when record EVPs feel sorry for you.

After too long, the things I love; things I know about myself

Sure, I can sit online all day and read people’s blogs as they recount the meaningful experiences they’ve had in cyberspace, but my musings mean nothing if I don’t write about them – at least that’s what I think.  So, in the spirit of having not blogged for the length of this semester I’d like to quote some very quotable, or not, passages that have caught my attention these past few months.

God hath a voice that will make you hear. Though he intreat you to hear the voice of his gospel, he will make you hear the voice of his condemning sentence, without intreaty. We cannot make you believe against your will; but God will make you feel against your will.

Richard Baxter, from Call to the Unconverted to Turn and Live

The next one was presented to us yesterday in theory class.  We were subsequently asked to respond to a list of questions as if we were critical theorists.  This exercise taught me that even I can be critical of Stephen Colbert.

Well, suddenly an option is looming on the horizon. And I don’t mean Al Gore (though he’s a world-class loomer). First of all, I don’t think Nobel Prizes should go to people I was seated next to at the Emmys. Second, winning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.

Stephen Colbert, “I Am an Op-Ed Columnist (And So Can You!)“, The New York Times.

I usually enjoy reading while I walk to campus.  I’m not sure if this activity is caused by my uncomfortability with looking people in the eye or just the result of my need for media sedation.  Whatever the cause, Monday’s pleasure was from Smithsonian magazine.

I was reminded that first day and every day after that we are a restless nation, rattling from road to road; a nation that had largely abandoned long-distance trains because they did not go to enough places.   It is in our nature as Americans to want to drive everywhere, even into the wilderness.

Paul Theroux, “The Long Way Home”, Smithsonian.

Now, Theroux’s writing is much more spectacular than that small strip.  It’s always revealing of your own concerns and thought processes when you reflect upon the sentences and words you actually stop and reread over and over again.  They may not be the most well written or stunningly descriptive prose penned to date, but they will tell you something about who you are.

Maybe I’m wrong about my musings not meaning anything if I’m not writing.  Maybe the value of our thoughts is simply enhanced by how they cause use to act.

Twitter as worship (part 1)

Graduate classes have started, and I’m already frustrated.

For one class we will be splitting into groups for research over a variety of topics.  I’m choosing between whether there is a correlation between political views, media use and religion in American society OR what do people who use Twitter during church Tweet about.

While my job focuses partly on viral marketing, the traditionalist inside me still finds it hard to address Twitter or Facebook in a professional setting.  Adding church to that conversation makes it even harder.

From a media standpoint, watching technological innovation brainwash the general public is stimulating enough.  From a worship standpoint, the historical idea of community is being challenged by Web-based communication avenues.  Whether this challenge exists is a matter of opinion probably formed on the grounds of whatever your individual church believes.

I operate two Twitter accounts, but can’t see myself using either of them in a worship setting for a few reasons (two now and two in a later post).  All have something to do with my own view of community.

1. Vocal doesn’t equal Viral – I’m going to steal the syntax of a Cadillac commercial – the one with the intimidating woman who compares red cars to sexy people.  The relationship you have with people in your church (via social media) isn’t that different than the relationship you have with other people (via social media).  You communicate through electronics.  This is a wonderful tool when you consider the possibility of connecting with people around the world you’re unable to see on a daily basis.  However, at church not only is it possible to be in face-to-face communication with members during the week, but at church you are, in fact, physically able to talk to other human beings.  I would love to take this further, but to sum it up I’ll ask this: why would you ever Tweet something into a conversation thread instead of talking things out.  This prediction could be over the top, but there is the potential for churches to become even less legitimate in American society as members now have avenues to forgo face-to-face experiences that might be awkward, uncomfortable or deal with controversial topics.
2. Free dialogue leads away from Biblical authority – When George Whitefield preached the only limitation placed on the size of crowds that gathered to hear him was the volume of his own voice (which was probably booming).  Whitefield’s crowds came to hear the preached Word of God and experience the movement of the Holy Spirit.  Consequently, Whitefield’s years as a preacher saw numerous conversions to Christianity.  The rise of social media in a worship setting certainly raises the level of personal, inner reflection.  However, it does so with the sacrifice of respect and reverence for the entire scope of Biblical authority.

Certainly we all have thoughts during worship, and having an innovative way to record them might make worship more fun.  While the argument for social media use during worship is strong, my own sense tells me that the church doesn’t need this type of media to keep up with society – to make things more relevant for twenty-somethings.  If it’s something you want, have a go at it.  But for the sake of the global body, don’t let something like Twitter create more fragmented churches.

Social media vs. social responsibility: A blog about solidarity

While most titles that include the ‘versus’ line work to compare and contrast subjects, I’d like to look at the possibility that the subjects in this title are sometimes in true competition with one another.  I’ve noticed with the rise in popularity of things like CNN’s iReport segments and YouTube along with the advancing technologies of iPhones and Blackberries, social media are moving us away from human contact and toward computer interface.

Engineers and scientists have done amazing things; things that we (who know nothing about the technology) are amazed by and would like to master for ourselves – we’ll never be able to do this because we will only understand what technology does, not how.  This will always lead us to want newer technology when boredom sets in with our current toys.

We are already aware of the things that happen to the people around us.  Many of us truly believe these people never change, so our amazement for technology begins to transcend our amazement for human life.  But people are changing and causing what some of us see as a shift away from natural human solidarity.

If you search the videos sections on any of the major news networks’ Web sites, you’ll find videos shot by  amateurs depicting some sort of tragedy, a necessary rescue of some kind or people talking about the hardship they face at the hands of an oppressive system.  Yet it is seldom that the person taping does anything remotely helpful for the recorded victims.  They have one thing in mind.  The video – that is a technology that has recently become capable of mass distribution via the Web.

But then again, maybe these broad generalizations are too harsh and paint a skewed picture of the human relationship.  One of the videos I pulled up trying to find a CNN report I’d seen on TV that bashed a videographer for not stepping in to help some people trapped in a burning car wreck reveals that instincts have a greater influence on human solidarity (at this point) than the Web.

If you watch it, you’ll see that the people rescuing the mother and children from the burning SUV aren’t flashing cameras or taking video.  They’re engaged in the moment knowing that protecting human life is somehow their responsibility.  I can’t call the videographer a non-human for not “helping out,” but the truth is the more we become distracted toys and technology, the less able we are to fulfill our duty to advance human solidarity.  In this video there were more than enough people working to help, and at some point too many people is just cumbersome.  Having this video evidence shows just how wrong I might be about people becoming less engaged with others.

We all have to realize when to put down the video cameras, the netbooks, the iPhones and anything else that has the power to Tweet and just live with human beings.

Lewis and Lawrence on wandering thoughts in prayer

While the topic of prayer has been covered in books, research, sermons and the like, some of the greatest reflections on it can be found in unsuspecting places far from our intentions to study its practicality.

In The Screwtape Letters C.S. Lewis writes:

“Whenever they are attending to the Enemy Himself we are defeated, but there are ways of preventing them from doing so.  The simplest is to turn their gaze away from Him towards themselves.  Keep them watching their own minds and trying to produce feelings there by the action of their own wills” (16).

This deception is more subtle than we know because all too often prayer naturally revolves around us.  Not that praying for our own needs and desires is a sinful practice, but praying to appease a specific emotion or feeling seems closer to idolatry than reverence for the Lord.

Consider also the words of Brother Lawrence concerning our wandering thoughts in prayer:

“One way to recollect the mind easily in the time of prayer, and preserve it more in tranquility, is not to let it wander too far at other times.  You should keep it strictly in the presence of God; and being accustomed to think of Him often, you will find it easy to keep your mind calm in the time of prayer, or at lease to recall it from its wanderings” (49).

In order to honestly reflect on these works, we have to ask ourselves one question.  When you think of prayer, what’s the first thought in your mind?  Is it you?  Your needs?  Is it asking for things?  Again, these thoughts aren’t necessarily wrong, but the object, or better yet the orientation, is.  Lewis states later that we can become easily affixed to objects or abstract creations and claim them as definitions for our God.  However, if these objects become our gods, there is no longer reason to practice remaining in their presence – the concept advocated for by Brother Lawrence.

God is either altogether physical or he simply does not exist.  These are the ultimate goals for Satan’s distraction of our minds as we pray.

RE: “Is ‘God’ dead . . . “

Christianity Today writer Susan Wunderink certainly knew of the facts before I posted ‘Is “God” dead, killed by language?’ last week.  I guess I’m just happy to see that Christians elsewhere in our world embody some of the same struggles I’m experiencing here.

Agnes Monica is the Miley Cyrus of Southeast Asia. The Indonesian teen singer’s face is ubiquitous. Her performances are packed out. But in Selangor, Malaysia, no one is allowed to play her song “Allah Peduli” (“God Cares”). Monica is a Christian, and Malaysian law bans non-Muslims from referring to God as Allah.

The ban on “God Cares” is one application of state laws widely opposed by the island nation’s Christians and other non-Muslims. Few question whether Allah is the God of the Bible—to Malaysian Christians, Allah is simply the word for God.

Read the whole story here, compliments of Christianity Today.

Relaxing without relaxing

One of my college roommates was able to spend this summer working for a congressman in Washington D.C.  We talked yesterday, and he told me about public transportation, his view of the Capitol, and the busyness of answering e-mails, sorting e-mails, taking phone calls, recording messages, blah, blah, blah.  While the American dream starts out small, its beauty comes in the possibility of growth.

When I began telling him about my job, I couldn’t help but breath one long sigh as I detailed my enjoyment of the TGIF reality.  The weekends are more meaningful when you’re finally able to pack up the work week, put it in your backpack, and leave it there until Monday morning.  Granted, this may never be the case for me again after this summer so I’ll take it while I can.

When I think about my spiritual life, ‘peace’ normally comes to mind.  A few weeks ago, I spoke with a friend from home who reminded me there is a difference between relaxation and relaxation (that’s my way of drawing out the word to emphasize a deeper meaning – that’s how he talks most of the time).  Sure, I can sit on the couch and Twitter-blog-book with Seinfeld in the background, but am I really relaxing?

For me, the answer is obvious.  I spend four hours a day on the computer at work so gluing my eyes to one for the hours leading to bed is probably the dumbest thing I can for my physical and spiritual health.

Yes this world is going digital faster than it’s Going Green, either that or they’re holding hands and skipping into the techno-future, but spirituality doesn’t seem to be a technological thing.  We haven’t re-discovered Jesus with the advent of the computer.  When a pastor has to blog about why Christians shouldn’t use Twitter during worship, something has seriously slipped past our spiritual radars.

The question I’m asking myself is whether we’re actually becoming dumber people, or rather ‘numb-er’ to the existence of any metaphysical truths.  Face it, the quickness and multitude of information we’re receiving is little more than an addictive drug – one that’s got a hold of more than enough people who aren’t yet ready to admit its grasp.  I’m one of them.

Is ‘God’ dead, killed by language?

Last week, I finished a book review on What Orwell Didn’t Know, which is an aggregate collection of essays written in response to George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language”.    Language is the focus of both works, but more precisely, these writings hone in on the power behind the English language to confuse, influence and mislead publics.  The effects associated with commercial advertising have been studied extensively by communications scholars, helping us understand the vast amount of advertising we’re exposed to on a daily basis.  This doesn’t seem to concern us however.

Yet, when it comes to the effects of language, many of us remain blinded by suave political jargon and minute connotations of specific words and phrases that some things slip past our cognitive minds and dig deep into our emotions.  This happens without our knowledge.  We therefore respond based on emotion rather than reason – or any normal thought process for that matter.

One of the things I find most unappetizing about our language is the quickness with which certain words and phrases become second-hand, hackneyed.  For example, not even a year ago, university students started using the word ‘legitimate,’ and more often ‘legit,’ to describe anything they approved of.  ‘Legit’ became the new ‘tight,’ ‘cool,’ ‘awesome,’ etc.  And people used it so often that ‘legit’ became the most over used word, in my mind, of the 2008-2009 school year.  I thank God it’s summer and the trend-setters have left Waco for a few months.

I wonder, however, if this is the case with other words we hold a bit closer to our hearts.  What about ‘God’?  Times have changed, and our generation can no longer say God and expect the general public to assume we’re speaking of the Christian version.  I say version because in English the word ‘god’ can refer to anything from YHWH to Allah to Anderson Cooper or Bill O’Reilly.  Yes, liberal politicians can be Christian too.  Bradley Minnigan led me to think about this in his latest review of Jars of Clay’s newest album.  He says this:  “They may not mention God explicitly in the lyrics, but should they have to?”

Depending on your interpretation this could be offensive.  However, it may also be freeing.  For me it’s illuminating.  Those of us who are regular churchgoers can use the name God in regular conversation and feel relatively comfortable doing so, especially when conversing with other churchgoers.  Sometimes sharing our faith with members of other faiths that have a concept of God is comfortable because we normally discuss our own understanding of the character of ‘our gods.’

But there is a point when the term ‘God’ fails to serve its purpose – when we begin using ‘God’ as a catch-all for what we may or may not believe to be true about the God we supposedly worship.  Our personal use of ‘God,’ and even ‘Lord,’ ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ reveals something of our theology.  Better yet, it reveals whether we properly fear the Lord or not.  In looking at myself I’ve discovered my use of ‘oh Lord’ has gotten entirely out of hand.  Additionally, I’m confused as to what I should call God and whether I even have enough faith to hope in Christ’s Lordship.  We ought to return to the Bible and uncover the names once given to our Lord.  He is more than a name.