Wednesday, April 29, 2009

From First Things Blog:

The Peace Corps in Ecclesiastical Drag

Fetching, no? That’s how Bill Murchison describes much of mainline Protestantism today:

The present presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, when asked by Time magazine a few years back to specify her focus as head of the church, replied, “Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development.” And . . . and . . . On God, too? On Jesus? On sin and salvation? Not as the lady allowed. Not a word issued forth from her about those concerns for which the Episcopal Church—and all other churches—had supposedly gone into business.

The Peace Corps in ecclesiastical drag is what modern churches often resemble. You want to work for sustainable development? Well, then, off to church we go. It sounds a little silly, because it is silly. The government and a complex of secular organizations already address these concerns, often quite intelligently.

Which is not to say that the Church should not be engaged in feeding the hungry, but that she should make sure to provide the Bread of Life, too.

(via Strange Herring)

From First Things Blog:

Why Can’t We Concentrate?

Laura Miller reviews Winifred Gallagher’s latest book on—Wait, what was it on again? Oh, yeah.—our culture’s inability to concentrate and what we can do about it:

You don’t have to agree that “we” are getting stupider, or that today’s youth are going to hell in a handbasket (by gum!) to mourn the withering away of the ability to think about one thing for a prolonged period of time. Carr (whose argument was grievously mislabeled by the Atlantic’s headline writers as a salvo against the ubiquitous search engine) reported feeling the change “most strongly” while he was reading. “Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy,” he wrote. “Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text.” For my own part, I now find it challenging to sit still on my sofa through the length of a feature film. The urge to, for example, jump up and check the IMDB filmography of a supporting actor is well-nigh irresistible, and once I’m at the computer, why not check e-mail? Most of the time, I’ll wind up pausing the DVD player before the end of the movie and telling myself I’ll watch the rest tomorrow. . . . .

Winifred Gallagher’s new book, Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life argues that it’s high time we take more deliberate control of this stuff. “The skillful management of attention,” she writes, “is the sine qua non of the good life and the key to improving virtually every aspect of your experience, from mood to productivity to relationships.” Because we can only attend to a tiny portion of the sensory cacophony around us, the elements we choose to focus on—the very stuff of our reality—is a creation, adeptly edited, providing us with a workable but highly selective version of the world and our own existence. Your very self, “stored in your memory,” is the product of what you pay attention to, since you can’t remember what you never noticed to begin with. . . . .

As long as we remain only dimly aware of the dueling attention systems within us, the reactive will continue to win out over the reflective. We’ll focus on discussion-board trolls, dancing refinancing ads, Hollywood gossip and tweets rather than on that enlightening but lengthy article about the economy or the novel or film that has the potential to ravish our souls. Tracking the shiny is so much easier than digging for gold! Over time, our brains will adapt themselves to these activities and find it more and more difficult to switch gears. Gallagher’s exhortations to scrutinize and redirect our attention could not be more timely, but actually accomplishing such a feat increasingly feels beyond our control. I can’t speak personally to the effectiveness of meditation, Gallagher’s recommended remedy for chronic distraction, but the effectiveness of meditative practices (religious or secular) in reshaping the brain have also been abundantly demonstrated.

Knee-jerk Internet boosters like to argue that the old ways of thinking are both obsolete and less wondrous than fuddy-duddies make them out to be. The next generation of citizens, they insist, will happily inhabit a culture composed of millions of small, spinning, sparkly bits and, what’s more, they will thrive in it. Tell that to the kids who spent all weekend holed up with the last Harry Potter book. As exhausting as it can be to fight off the siren call of the reactive attention system, some part of us will always yearn to be immersed, captivated and entranced by just one thing, to the point that the world and all its dancing diversions grows dim, fades and falls away.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Glendon Declines Notre Dame Award in Protest

Glendon Declines Notre Dame Award in Protest

First Things reports that Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, has declined the annual Laetare Medal from Notre Dame, which she was to have received this spring at the commencement ceremonies. Here's her letter to the university president

Pseudo-Journal Entry

Dear Journal,

            These are disturbing times. Higher education in America, a treasure too long taken for granted and long gone unprotected, is on the verge of becoming utterly useless or merely a method of indoctrination to convince my generation of the validity of liberal politics, agnosticism, and secularism.

            I recently was given the privilege of attending an academic conference addressing this very issue. It has become quite apparent that classical liberal education has become, and will continue to be, nothing short of utilitarian. Forget the notion of expanding one’s mind simply for the sake of one’s mind, or to learn about the surrounding world, or the God who created it—not that the utterance of the Deity is even tolerated any longer—but we should soon get used to the concept of college as simply a stepping stone to job placement.

            To be frank, attending college or university in America is simply the modus operandi to begin a paying career. Academia has been reduced to a glorified job training service—heaven forbid we should do on-the-job training—and universities are all full of students who have no real motivation to attend, much less study, but are there simply because it has been pounded into their brains by the public education system that they have to attend if they ever want to get a job.

So, rather than develop children’s technical skills that they display in their more mature years of adolescence by way of apprenticeship or some similar method, we force nearly 70% of public high school graduates into the higher education system, 50-60% of which, according to some studies, would not attend if they were not “required.” Thus, we are filling the halls of academia, a noble calling deserved by many, but not most, individuals, with young people that do not demonstrate any particular scholarly gifts or inclinations. We are creating institutions with a watered down study program in order to accommodate less-than-prepared pupils in order to pass them through the system in order to get them out into the job market in the most expedient manner.

For fear of sounding elitist, allow me to share a disclaimer: Academia, in an ideal world, should serve as preparatory ground for individuals who for their life long career seek to be academics, or enter a profession that demands extensive higher education training, such as physician, lawyer, or minister. Academia (the “university”, if you will) is merely a specialized institution of training for these individuals, the same way a trade school is an institution for specialized training for those seeking expertise in electrical works, computer technology, plumbing, etc. Their preparation will make them an expert in their related field the same way my theological studies would make me an expert in my particular fields. My particular gifts and interests incline me to my profession. I would not for one minute put on the pretense of knowing the first thing about plumbing. When in need, I would seek out a skilled plumber—one who willingly went through his training to be a skilled professional. If this plumber is gifted in plumbing and not academics, why in the world would I care if my plumber had obtained a Bachelor’s degree in business marketing, as long as he does an adequate job in fixing my toilet?!

Yet this is where our society stands today: the standard qualification for getting any job is that an individual must possess a Bachelor’s degree of some sort. It might be entirely irrelevant to the career one currently holds (such as the restaurant manager who holds a degree in biology), but as long as they have that degree, clearly they are qualified for an above average blue-collar position.

Based on current trends, it is not terribly difficult to postulate what the educational system will look like for my children’s generation. More than likely, the system will continue to be full of students don’t care to be present, and teachers who really don’t care much to teach. The appeal of tenure in higher education in our own day has created university professors that, rather than engage and educate their students, spend countless hours buried in their office doing hours of research, and pass off the actual responsibilities of teaching to their graduate students. What’s more, the research done is not simply to benefit the academic community, but as a necessary evil to obtain tenure (which has become necessary in most university systems for job security). This trend annually creates nearly two million articles published in academic journals costing the system nearly $50,000 per article for publication, yet these articles are full of mere “laughable academic jargon” as Naomi Schaefer Riley aptly noted.

Indeed, should current trends continue, the soul of the American university is bound to be empty. The study of any given discipline is, in all reality, the study of the general revelation of God and His creation, albeit these disciplines tell forth this revelation in a variety of unique ways. But I wouldn’t expect my children to learn this in their university experience. The aforementioned notion is all but banned from emphasis the nation’s major universities—a far cry from the origins of the university in Europe, where the academic mission was the pursuit of Truth, for the glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom (consider the beginnings of Oxford, Cambridge, or the American Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities).

To alter these sad developments would necessitate a radical re-realization of the purpose of higher education and its existence as an extension of the general revelation of God Almighty. If the utilitarian understanding of academia, coupled with professors advancing a militant secularist agenda, is ever to reverse its course, it is going to take a massive grassroots effort on the part of the people of God to change the hearts and minds of America’s people in understanding what liberal education is and what purpose it should serve. Indeed, this hope of affecting the souls of man, with the purpose of affecting the soul of the university, will require far more than our own efforts can accomplish. We would be most wise to beseech the help of the One whom, in the very process of education, we desire to glorify should we ever expect to be victorious. 

 

Glorious

Friday, April 24, 2009

Well, At Least I Had a Good Time...

Well, At Least I Had a Good Time…


american-idol-8-four-judgesWhenever Simon Cowell gives a brutally honest assessment of an American Idol performance, all of America watches the response of the contestant.

What will they say?

Will they take the criticism in stride?

Will they incorporate the truth and become better?

Or will they lash out against Simon (who is usually right)?

For years, we have heard the common refrain from contestants: “Well, Simon… That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it.” Perhaps this reply showcases our culture’s resistance to seeing anything as objectively good or bad. Is beauty only in the eye of the beholder? Or are there transcendent standards of beauty and goodness?

This year, contestants have been more apt to admit that they might have performed badly. But they have often sought to justify themselves by saying: “But at least I had a good time.” Or: “Well, I was having fun up there.”

In other words: “It doesn’t matter whether or not I sounded terrible. It doesn’t matter if the arrangement stunk or if America and the judges thought the performance was lacking. What matters is that I had ‘fun’.”

It has been funny to watch Simon and the other judges respond politely, saying “Good for you” while probably thinking, America doesn’t care if you were having fun. Are you good enough to go on to the next round or not?

I wonder how many people in our society respond to the consequences of their bad decisions in the same way. “At least I had fun.”

I lost my job because I was looking at pornography at work, but at least I had a “good time.”

My wife left me because I was committing adultery, but at least the “affair” was “fun.”

My kids are rebelling because I have been an absent and distant parent, but at least I have had “fun” in all the extracurricular activities I was involved in.

However, people never really look back on their failures and think of how fun it was at the time. Equipped with 20/20 vision into their past, they see the whole picture and regret their failings. Sadly, those without Christ will race forward blindly lacking wisdom, discernment and direction and inevitably slam into more walls of failure and regret.

Our society believes that enjoyment of this life is the primary purpose of life. We are Epicureans now. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Negative consequences may come to us because of negative choices, but we can justify those consequences by appealing to “fun” and “pleasure.”

It is sad to watch people who appeal to the “good time” get voted off the next week. Real life comes crashing down. We face judgment for our choices. Perform badly for the judges on American Idol and the American public who is watching at home on TV and you will be sent packing, whether you had a good time or not.

The judgment of God is similar. Our performance before a holy and righteous God is sadly lacking. We have not reflected him rightly. We have not fulfilled the human vocation he gave us in the Garden. We have rebelled against his rule.

How many people will face the judgment of God in the same way? When those who refuse to bow the knee to Christ (the only one to offer God a perfect performance) will stand before his throne and hear the chilling words, “I never knew you,” how will they respond?

“Well, at least I had a good time…” could be the sad, last words of the sinner doomed to destruction.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

     

Monday, April 20, 2009

Twitter: The Telegraph of Narcissus

Earlier in the year, I posted a link to some articles suggesting ways to redeem social network. Those are all well and good, yet the more and more I give serious thought to the nature of social networking, the more I am disturbed.

Disclaimer: I have Twitter, I have Facebook, and I will post a link to Facebook as soon as I complete this entry so as to be sure broadcast to the whole world that I have a new post and they should go check it out. Why? So I get a greater hit count and subsequently derive a sense of popularity or greater significance? It's all very unsettling, simply because it has the potential to continue to dehumanize us--marring the image of God, and causing us to continue fleeing beauty. We are content to savor the ugly, and avoid surrounding ourselves with beautiful things. Why? Because they direct our minds to God, and we are immediately convicted of how we squander His beauty by wallowing contendly with ugly things--that includes forsaking the relations of people.

But I digress.

Check out this post from Justin Taylor:

Nicholas Carr, author of the book The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google and the article Is Google Making Us Stupid? recently blogged about Twitter:
Twitter unbundles the blog, fragments the fragment. It broadcasts the text message, turns SMS into a mass medium.

And what exactly are we broadcasting? The minutiae of our lives. The moment-by-moment answer to what is, in Twitterland, the most important question in the world: What are you doing? Or, to save four characters: What you doing? Twitter is the telegraph of Narcissus. Not only are you the star of the show, but everything that happens to you, no matter how trifling, is a headline, a media event, a stop-the-presses bulletin. Quicksilver turns to amber.

And:
Like so many other Web 2.0 services, Twitter wraps itself and its users in an infantile language. We're not adults having conversations, or even people sending messages. We're tweeters twittering tweets. We're twitters tweetering twits. We're twits tweeting twitters. We're Tweety Birds.
He's not done:

Narcissism is just the user interface for nihilism, of course, and with artfully kitschy services like Twitter we're allowed to both indulge our self-absorption and distance ourselves from it by acknowledging, with a coy digital wink, its essential emptiness. I love me! Just kidding!

The great paradox of "social networking" is that it uses narcissism as the glue for "community." Being online means being alone, and being in an online community means being alone together. The community is purely symbolic, a pixellated simulation conjured up by software to feed the modern self's bottomless hunger. Hunger for what? For verification of its existence? No, not even that. For verification that it has a role to play. As I walk down the street with thin white cords hanging from my ears, as I look at the display of khakis in the window of the Gap, as I sit in a Starbucks sipping a chai served up by a barista, I can't quite bring myself to believe that I'm real. But if I send out to a theoretical audience of my peers 140 characters of text saying that I'm walking down the street, looking in a shop window, drinking tea, suddenly I become real. I have a voice. I exist, if only as a symbol speaking of symbols to other symbols.

Do I hear an amen?
HT: Andrew Sullivan

Friday, April 17, 2009

Here He Stood














488 years ago, April 17-18, Martin Luther stood trial at the Diet [formal assembly] of Worms [a small town on the river Rhine in present-day Germany). (It's properly pronounced, I believe, something like "DEE-et of Voerms," not "DIE-et of Wirms.")

On the 17th Luther was asked whether certain writings were his and if he would revoke them as heretical. He asked for time to compose his answer--he prayed for long hours and consulted with friends, and returned the next day to give his famous answer.

You can see some 
extracts from his response--or watch below the scene from the 2003 movie,Luther:
HT: Justin Taylor