I was thinking about a post by John Dyer referring to our perceptions of technology. Older technology, such as indoor plumbing and air conditioning, are just assumed in life - we don't really think of them much as "technology" but just stuff that is part of life.
This reminded me of an assignment I had in sixth grade. I had to interview an older person about their perspective on living now vs. when they grew up. I interviewed my Grandmother Lyle. One thing really stuck out to me: I asked her if she preferred living now or back when she was growing up. She answered now, partly because there are so many more labor saving devices, specifically mentioning washing machines. She thought it is much easier to live now as there is much less manual labor for the regular person.
This and the God's Technology video I recently reviewed reminds me to be thankful to God for technology. He gave us brains and raw materials to make all the technology we have today that really does save time, labor, and frustration.
Jan 31, 2011
Jan 28, 2011
God the Designer
As an engineer, I revel in reading Psalm 104.
God designed the earth, set it all in place, and made the habitats for the various creatures. And this wasn't haphazard, but done "in wisdom" (v. 24).
The psalm is also bookended by praise to God for His creation. Indeed, the psalmist declares he will sing to the Lord (v. 33) even as God Himself rejoices over His works (v. 31).
Some takeaways:
God designed the earth, set it all in place, and made the habitats for the various creatures. And this wasn't haphazard, but done "in wisdom" (v. 24).
The psalm is also bookended by praise to God for His creation. Indeed, the psalmist declares he will sing to the Lord (v. 33) even as God Himself rejoices over His works (v. 31).
Some takeaways:
- Biology, ecology, forestry, geology, etc. are good things that point to our God's work
- Go outside and share this joy in God's works
- God designed in wisdom - so must I
- God rejoices in His creation - can I do the same with mine?
Jan 26, 2011
Technology Replaces Talking
Interesting article from USA Today about technology and whether it connects or disconnects us.
On a related note, I'll share an anecdote from this past March, originally posted on the family blog.
Our family went out to a local restaurant, and I keep reflecting on an incident there. We were in a row of booth/tables and soon after we sat down, a young couple (probably undergrads) were seated next to us. At least I assume they were a couple as they came in together. They said less than 10 words to each other the whole time we were there.
Why? The guy spent almost the entire time texting on his phone. He started soon after he sat down, paused to order, and started up again. At first, I thought it odd but assumed he was finishing up some text conversation. Our family continued our conversation and fun. The place had a bunch of "stuff" hanging from the ceiling so that was a distraction for the kids for a while. Later, during a lull in the kids activities, I noticed that the guy was texting (still?). I hadn't heard a word from their direction in a while - so even if there was a time when he was not texting, he wasn't exactly making conversation.
Now, I have no idea what the girl is like, but she seemed to be putting up with this with great patience. If this is habitual behavior, I think she should dump him for treating her rudely.
Should we be so attached to being connected anytime, anywhere, that we ignore the person in front of us?
On a related note, I'll share an anecdote from this past March, originally posted on the family blog.
Our family went out to a local restaurant, and I keep reflecting on an incident there. We were in a row of booth/tables and soon after we sat down, a young couple (probably undergrads) were seated next to us. At least I assume they were a couple as they came in together. They said less than 10 words to each other the whole time we were there.
Why? The guy spent almost the entire time texting on his phone. He started soon after he sat down, paused to order, and started up again. At first, I thought it odd but assumed he was finishing up some text conversation. Our family continued our conversation and fun. The place had a bunch of "stuff" hanging from the ceiling so that was a distraction for the kids for a while. Later, during a lull in the kids activities, I noticed that the guy was texting (still?). I hadn't heard a word from their direction in a while - so even if there was a time when he was not texting, he wasn't exactly making conversation.
Now, I have no idea what the girl is like, but she seemed to be putting up with this with great patience. If this is habitual behavior, I think she should dump him for treating her rudely.
Should we be so attached to being connected anytime, anywhere, that we ignore the person in front of us?
Jan 21, 2011
Implications of the Internet for Theological Debate & Shepherding
Another chapter in the ongoing controversy of the Federal Vision theology in the PCA. The theological issues are beyond the scope of this blog (and I don't have a dog in that race anyway) but the presbytery report discussed in this article is interesting for the technological implications for the Church (big "C"). Item 15 of the presbytery's preliminary report reads:
We as a denomination (and I imagine others) are now struggling with what happens when someone puts out something through this very easy to use broadcast channel known as the Internet. Apparently, there is the claim that one group of elders is putting out a bad or possibly false view of another elder on the internet rather than going through a church court. There is in fact a fine line here - Galatians 2 shows us how one apostle rebuked another publicly, and so we presbyterians take that to mean that elders should (at least at some point as a correction process proceeds) have a public rebuke.
Now, I think the Internet can be a very useful tool for theological debate, given some guidelines (basically treating a debater the same as you would in person). However, in the case of shepherding/correcting, I think it is telling that both passages above sound like you're talking to someone in person. Paul opposed Peter "to his face" in front of others. Jesus tells us to "go to" your brother that sinned. Maybe Skype counts, but these sound like "in person" events. Thus, it seems to me that technology mediated communication is not the way God intends this correction to take place.
Do you think dispute and/or correction can take place via the Internet?
MOP instructs its Administrative Committee to draft an overture for the Presbytery to send to the General Assembly or seek some other way to initiate a denomination wide conversation regarding public disputation on the Internet. Such a conversation should also include a) questions regarding the relevance and application of Matthew 18 and other Scripture that might help foster and promote Christ-honoring discourse throughout the PCA; b) a discussion of possible revisions to the BCO that could be brought by presbyteries to the General Assembly (e.g., make more explicit the process for injurious reports derived from Internet sources); and c) a basic set of standards outlining the duties presbyters owe each other as brothers in the faith and fellow servants of the church in the midst of theological disputation.A little background knowledge. My denomination (the PCA) is presbyterian. We work through various "church courts" starting with a local session, the regional presbytery, and the General Assembly (other terms and levels are used in other presbyterian bodies). Formal rulings on a theological debate occur in these courts, which are made up of the ordained elders of the church - all of which are considered equal. The highest office in the PCA is the moderator of the General Assembly - he serves for one year and just runs the meeting. If an elder is thought to be in error on some doctrine, a court can examine him - and either side can appeal to a higher court if they disagree with the ruling. The issue of Matthew 18 is brought up as the church courts are part of the process described there for correcting erring brothers and sisters.
We as a denomination (and I imagine others) are now struggling with what happens when someone puts out something through this very easy to use broadcast channel known as the Internet. Apparently, there is the claim that one group of elders is putting out a bad or possibly false view of another elder on the internet rather than going through a church court. There is in fact a fine line here - Galatians 2 shows us how one apostle rebuked another publicly, and so we presbyterians take that to mean that elders should (at least at some point as a correction process proceeds) have a public rebuke.
Now, I think the Internet can be a very useful tool for theological debate, given some guidelines (basically treating a debater the same as you would in person). However, in the case of shepherding/correcting, I think it is telling that both passages above sound like you're talking to someone in person. Paul opposed Peter "to his face" in front of others. Jesus tells us to "go to" your brother that sinned. Maybe Skype counts, but these sound like "in person" events. Thus, it seems to me that technology mediated communication is not the way God intends this correction to take place.
Do you think dispute and/or correction can take place via the Internet?
Jan 19, 2011
Dishonest Weights and Measures
In Proverbs, there are four verses that condemn dishonest weights and measures: 11:1, 16:11, 20:10, 23. This is certainly a working out of the commandment to not bear false witness; it also falls under covetousness - the underlying heart condition that leads one to gain more profit from another. To be clear, I don't think these refer to a broken gauge (an accident), nor to the deli counter ringing up 1.07 pounds of sliced salami as just one pound (generosity), but one that is wrong in the owner's favor by design. Let's look in more detail at how honest and dishonest weights and measures are described.
Jan 17, 2011
Definition from Responsible Technology
In a recent post, I started working through a definition of technology. I dug out the book that has been most significant to my thinking about technology and found a definition there. See what you think:
My main complaint is the part about "forming and transforming the natural creation." This phrase sounds like it was made by a mechanical or civil engineer, referring to buildings, structures, and machines, not thinking of the myriad digital creations we have today. We can take a very wide view of "natural creation" (and I do) to include electromagnetic waves, bits in a computer, maybe even logic structures and that would make the definition still fit. Still, I'd like to find a better phrase to capture this idea. Perhaps replace it with "...harnessing and directing the materials and forces of the natural creation..."
I considered trying to include something about design and/or creativity, but I think other parts of the definition cover this.
So, I'm left with:
What do you think? What improvements should we make to this?
Technology is a distinct 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 and purposes.Keep in mind that this is a "normative" definition - what technology ought to be.
-Monsma, Stephen V. (ed.) Responsible Technology, 1986, p. 19
My main complaint is the part about "forming and transforming the natural creation." This phrase sounds like it was made by a mechanical or civil engineer, referring to buildings, structures, and machines, not thinking of the myriad digital creations we have today. We can take a very wide view of "natural creation" (and I do) to include electromagnetic waves, bits in a computer, maybe even logic structures and that would make the definition still fit. Still, I'd like to find a better phrase to capture this idea. Perhaps replace it with "...harnessing and directing the materials and forces of the natural creation..."
I considered trying to include something about design and/or creativity, but I think other parts of the definition cover this.
So, I'm left with:
Technology is a distinct human cultural activity in which human beings exercise freedom and responsibility in response to God by harnessing and directing the materials and forces of the natural creation, with the aid of tools and procedures, for practical ends and purposes.
What do you think? What improvements should we make to this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)