Jun 9, 2011
neil

Stop telling your people to do evangelism (or at least not all of them)

At the ‘loving the lost’ conference yesterday, organised by Midlands Gospel Partnership, Andy Patterson shared with us six growing convictions borne out of years of fruitful gospel ministry.

Here they all are:

1) ‘evangelist’ is a multi-faceted office that should be identified and encouraged

2) God calls non-evangelists to reactive witnessing not driven by guilt but love

3) Social engagement should be a given for any church community

4) Multi-generational and multi-ethnic churches best reflect the gospel

5) ‘Attractional’ church should be a by-product not a strategy

6) Planting new churches rather than enlarging existing buildings is most blessed

The audio of the sessions should be available in the next few days at the MGP site.

 

Should we all be evangelists?

I want to pick up here Andy’s second point and expand on his conviction a little further.

I’m an evangelist. I’m not a great evangelist but I do look forward to opportunities to share my faith. Andy’s insight is that as church leaders we don’t help our congregations when we fail ‘to distinguish between the gifting of evangelists and the responsibility of believers who have not been gifted in this way.’

So the problem we create as ministers and evangelists is that ‘we seem to think others should be wired as we are’.

What is the result of pushing the evangelism agenda?

Because what we are asking people to be is unnatural to them it results in ‘guilt, inactivity and passing the buck’.

The biblical pattern is that all Christians are called to be witnesses but not all are gifted to be evangelists. So on Colossians  4:6, Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone,  Dick Lucas writes in the Bible Speaks Today commentary on Colossians;

Paul’s advice to the Christians is not along the lines of possessing oneself of better techniques with which to approach people. Rather he turns the problem right around so that the Christians can see their responsibilities in a much more promising light. Their privilege, simply put, is to answer everyone. That is to say they are to respond to the questions of others rather than initiate conversations on leading topics; they are to accept openings rather than make them.

This is emphatically, not to sound the retreat. Paul evidently believes that opportunities for response and explanation are to be found everywhere, for everyone is looking to discover answers about life and its meaning.  And Paul evidently things that believing Christians should be found everywhere too, ready to take up these frequent opportunities.

 

What is the result of encouraging witness rather than pushing evangelism?

Patterson suggests at least 8;

  • It recognises God’s sovereignty
  • It leads to prayer as we seek God given opportunities
  • It encourages holy living as we look to live lives that adorn the gospel
  • It removes strain and false guilt
  • It encourages excellence in our tasks
  • It develops genuine friendships
  • It allows effective, relaxed and open conversations
  • It embraces all personality types

 

Dick Lucas again;

It is obvious what strain this removes from conscientious Christians. The pressure to raise certain topics and reach certain people can make it difficult to live or talk normally. In any case, we go to the office to work, not evangelize. But by being ready and willing to respond the way is opened in a more serene, and successful, approach to each day’s opportunities. It opens the way, too, for a greater dependence on God’s leading as well as for a more relevant and sensitive witness, suited to each individual.

 

 

Jun 8, 2011
neil

The secret to successful marriage from Piper, Carson, Keller

Jun 7, 2011
neil

Never underestimate the place and power of godly women!

Check out this fantastic insight from Glen Knecht a pastor who visited the Ukraine after the collapse of communism;

How mistaken the Communists were when they allowed the older women to continue worshipping together! IT was they who were considered no threat to the new order, but it was they whose prayers and faithfulness over all those barren years held the church together and raised up a generation of men and young people to serve the Lord. Yes, the church we attended was crowded with these older women at the very front, for they had been the stalwart defenders and maintainers of Christ’s Gospel, but behind them and alongside them and in the balcony and outside the windows were the fruit of their faithfulness, men, women, young people, and children. We must never underestimate the place and power of our godly women.

Jun 6, 2011
neil

Why looking after parents in old age is a gospel issue

I’m a husband, a father, a church-minister. But i’m also still a son. My parents are both in their seventies and are enjoying an active retirement. But in preaching 1 Timothy 5 on Sunday evening I was reminded again that a time is approaching when I may be called upon to do far more than I do now to care for parents in old age.

What I think I had underestimated was this challenge from the apostle Paul that whether or not you are willing to look after your parents in their old age is a test of your sincerity of your faith.

I can’t remember anyone impressing this on me in a sermon before. I can’t think of the last time I ever taught on the subject. I wonder for how many Christians it is a completely new idea that how you treat your parents, long after you have left home, is a sign of the reality of your faith.

For Paul caring for parents and grandparents is practical theology. Our Christian faith begins at home.

And had I forgotten that Jesus himself left us that example to follow?  Even as he was suffering in agony on the cross, for your sin and mine, John tells us of how Jesus was thinking of the needs of his own mother and that he spoke to ensure that his mother, a widow, would be provided for in her old age. John writes;

Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on this disciple took her into his home.

In 1 Timothy 5:3-16 Paul gives four reasons why children need to provide for their parents.

If your mother is in need then v.4 ‘put your religion into practise’ by providing for her.

1) Looking after parents is a form of repayment.

Caring for your parents is repaying them what you owe according to Paul in v.4. The word for repaying means ‘to render what is due’. We all owe our parents an enormous amount for everything they did and continue to do for us.  A report in the guardian suggested that the cost of raising a child through to 21 years of age has now risen to £210,000!

But we all know it’s not just the money it’s the time, energy, emotional commitment, constant vigilance, sleepless nights, wisdom and advice, discipline, etc.

And what’s more the word for repaying is a word written in the infinitive form which really means ‘to keep on giving back’.

So Christians should not have to need our parents to say to us ‘after all we’ve done for you’ for we know and are thankful to God for all they have done.

It is the responsibility of children to make sure that their parents receive the best possible care in old age.

That’s going to look different for each family. Some parents are going to be fit and healthy, independent maybe for all but a few months. Some will need a great deal more care, you might have to give up a job to care for them, you might have to build an extension or move house.

But it matters and not just because you owe them but because honouring your parents in this way is also pleasing to God, v.4

2) Looking after parents is part of true worship of God.

You glorify God by loving your family.

And we shouldn’t be surprised because the commandment of God says ‘honour your father and mother’ and Paul here reminds us that the command doesn’t stop when you leave the family home and it doesn’t stop even when you marry.  The commandment is for life.

The 1960’s gave birth to a cultural revolution. It really marked the birth of the teenager and rebellion. Annie Gottlieb wrote of that time

We truly believed that the family had to be torn apart to free love and the first step was to tear ourselves free from our parents.

For the Christian we need to understand how easy it is to find ourselves conforming to that cultural expectation that we are independent spirits free from commitment and free from obligation to family.

The words of Augustine are sobering when he says;

If anyone fails to honour his parents, is there anyone he will spare?

When we care for our parents into their old age we show that we recognise them for who they are – gifts of God.

Have you made that link in your mind?

God says honour them. I’ve given them to you. And if you think they could have a done a better job then think what your life would have been like without any parents and see how tragic a circumstance that is.

The Christian is to honour Mum and Dad. So respect them, esteem them, value them, prize them, maybe you could actually speak to them once in a while, thank them, pray for them, tell them that you love them and then show that you mean it, care for them, give up your time for them, spend your money on them and if they don’t know Christ speak to them about Jesus and if they do know Christ speak to them about Jesus.

We need therefore to celebrate the lives of those who have given hours, days, weeks, years of their lives to caring for elderly relatives.  We need to pray for them and thank God for their godly example. It is not a wasted life to give a life in love and devotion to the care of another.

Now for some the call to care for family brings particular challenges. Maybe you feel let down by your parents. Maybe you’re really angry with them. Maybe you’ve never known your Dad or he walked out on your mom. Maybe it would be the hardest thing God could call on you to do to care for a parent in old age.

For some of us that might be hard but we remember too how Jesus knew what it was to be rejected by his own family – Mark 3:31-35.

If we are reluctant to give of ourselves to our parents because we either feel guilt at the way we’ve treated parents or anger at the way they have treated us we need to allow the gospel to bring healing and reconciliation.

If we are to prepare ourselves to serve our parents in their old age it might mean we need to put it right NOW. Some of us can’t afford to leave it until the day when we need to care for them.

We need a generous heart towards them emotionally and spiritually now if we are to find a generous heart for the future.

Here’s the advice of one on this theme;

1) Develop a system for prayer for your family

2) Begin your prayers for your family with thanksgiving. Think of every reason you have to thank God for them.

3) You may need to include prayers of confession for wrong attitudes eg cold-hearted, indifferent, proud, arrogant, self-righteous, ungrateful, disrespectful, disobedient

We need to ask God to change our attitude to our parents that we might honour him in our care of them.

Why are Christians under a particular obligation to care for parents? Because the opposite of honour is dishonour.

3) Looking after parents is a gospel issue. To fail to do so is sin against God and to bring the gospel into disrepute v.8

Maybe as a Christian you’re tempted to think well I’m busy serving God. I haven’t got time to care for them.

The Pharisees at the time of Jesus were notorious for putting to one side care for their relatives in order to ‘serve God.’ In Matthew 15:4-9 rebukes them for breaking the commands of God in their refusal to care for family. He calls them hypocrites whose behaviour demonstrates how FAR they are from God.

Paul says when we do that we have v.8 ‘denied the faith’ and we are ‘worse than an unbeliever’ .

Here is the principle..We all owe our parents full respect and we are commanded by God to show it.

All too often, modern society wants us to shove the elderly out of sight.  So if we live in a different town we think we can forget about them.  But this gives the church a wonderful opportunity to say we are different. The very way in which we care for parents and grandparents ought to proclaim the love of God.

Here’s how one journalist reflected on the issues just a couple of days ago;

Pretending and prevaricating is no longer an option. To cling blindly to the notion that benign local authorities will gently take our parents off our hands and rehouse them in cheerful surrounds with lots of stimulating activities and without the smell of boiled cabbage is unrealistic, verging perilously close to irresponsible.

By clinging to this fantasy, we do everyone a grave disservice; especially ourselves,

There in a nutshell is the problem. So what is the solution? I don’t know; but I am certain we need to come up with one. And fast.

She has no solution to the need. Not least because caring for family is simply inconvenient and fights with our ambitions and desires. The Christian refuses to live this way.

4) If we fail to look after our parents we will bring a burden on the church v.16

When Christians fail to care for their parents, if those parents are themselves Christians, in abdicating our responsibility we place the burden of responsibility onto the church of which they are members.

It may be that living in a different town or city that the church is willing and able to provide support of one kind or another to our relatives. That is something we should give thanks to God for but something that we should recognise and not take for granted.

Do we know what a local church does for them? Are we in contact? Do we find ways to at the very least support them, to ensure that what we expect them to do is not unreasonable? Do we demonstrate our gratitude? Are there other more needy individuals who cannot receive the support they need because we are not playing our part?

Conclusion

Let us remember that the Bible takes responsibility for care of parents in their old age very seriously. Paul’s words here in 1 Timothy 5 along with Jesus’ words in Matthew 15 are deeply disturbing.

  • So are we anticipating what we might need to do in the future to care for family?
  • Are we talking it over with our spouse and children?
  • Are we talking with our parents about their needs?
  • Are we praying that we would honour God in how we relate to our relatives and parents?
  • Do we see it as an integral part of our faith, worship and witness that we get this right?
Jun 4, 2011
neil

Don’t try to sell me heaven before I get there

This post from John Piper on turning 65 is a call to remember to put the gospel to work even as we stop our ‘work’. Let’s prepare well for our future and let’s prepare our people to plan well. There is more to retirement than gardening and holidays!

Jun 1, 2011
neil

Is it reasonable to doubt evolution?

In a recent debate with a number of atheists we’ve been discussing whether or not William Lane Craig (the man the New Stateman described as having a reputation for ‘eating atheists for breakfast‘) is a worthy opponent for Richard Dawkins who until now has refused to debate him.

One key issue is whether Lane Craig’s concerns over evolution discredit him. Lewis Wolpert said of Lane Craig on this issue,  “Oh Boy! Are you ignorant!

The question I want to address in this post is simply this, is it reasonable for an intelligent mind to doubt the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution or MUST doubt over the theory be regarded as a display of culpable ignorance?

A. Evangelical Christians who are evolutionists

Some, like Dawkins, argue that atheism is a logical consequence and necessary deduction of evolutionary theory.

Stephen Jay Gould profoundly disagrees and writes:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue fo God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.

Gould recognises the category mistake that Dawkins is making. It really shouldn’t surprise us therefore to find that there are eminent evangelical Christians who are full-blown evolutionists. For example;

Francis Collins: A physician and geneticist who was appointed Director of the National Institutes of Health (US) by President Obama. He is a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the highest civilian honour given by the President, for revolutionizing genetic research) and has also received the National Medal of Science. He is the author of The Language of God and founder of the Biologos Forum.

Dennis Alexander: The Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, where he is a Fellow. For many years he was Chairman of the Molecular Immunology Programme in Cambridge. Since 1992 he has been Editor of the journal Science & Christian Belief. He is the author of Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?

Alexander has written:

The ‘Darwinian theory of evolution, whatever may have been the various ideological uses to which it has been put since 1859, is essentially devoid of either religious or moral significance, and those who try to derive such significance from it are mistaken.’

B. What exactly is William Lane Craig’s own position?

1. WLC has no theological issue with evolutionary theory

He comments on his own website:

I think, for the reasons explained in the podcast, that an evolutionary theory is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis 1.

2. For WLC it is a scientific not a theological question

The question of biological origins is for me a straightforward scientific question: what does the evidence indicate about the means by which God brought about life and biological complexity?

3. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe WLC as ‘a creationist’ in any meaningful sense of the word

As far as the literature is concerned ‘creationism’ is a term reserved for those who reject the theory of evolution preferring either a literal reading of Genesis 1 or adopting ‘Intelligent Design’.

In other words to label WLC a creationist is to redefine the term and effectively to render it meaningless. If ‘creationism’ means only ‘God is involved’ well  ALL theists from 7-day young-earthers through to full-blown evolutionists should be called ‘creationists’ which is a bit of a pointless exercise.

4. WLC has not rejected Darwinian evolution.

WLC regards his own position as ‘agnostic’ on the issue. He remains unpersuaded but argues he is persuadable.

C. Is it intellectual suicide to be unpersuaded by current theories of evolution as Lewis Wolpert suggests?

Given that Lewis Wolpert regards the evidence to be excellent and to doubt it as an admission of the ‘ignorant’ it is surely inconceivable that any in the scientific community would be anything other than neo-Darwinian?

Are there any atheists and/or agnostics who are sceptical or at least remain to be persuaded with regards current theories of evolution?

1. 1 in 11 atheists in the US are sceptical of evolution

Michael Gerson notes in the Washington Post:

The latest findings of the Pew Forum’s massive and indispensable U.S. Religious Landscape Survey reveal some intriguing confusion among Americans on cosmic issues. About 13 percent of evangelicals, it turns out, don’t believe in a personal God, leading to a shameful waste of golf time on Sunday mornings. And 9 percent of atheists report that they are skeptical of evolution. Are there atheist creationists?

One wonders why 1 in 11 atheists are sceptical?

2. Why can’t evolutionary biologists agree amongst themselves as to the mechanism of evolution if the evidence is that strong?

Which theory of evolution is so obviously true that we should without doubt accept it? The gradualism of Dawkins & Dennett or the punctuated equilibrium of Stephen Jay Gould?

If micro-evolution over time becomes macroevolution why isn’t it obvious to Gould?

Darwin himself said in The Origin of Species

geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory’

Does the fossil record offer the strength of support that the neo-Darwinian theory claims?

The Palaeontologist Steven Stanley in his book Macroevolution: Pattern and Process writes:

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.

John Lennox marshals the evidence from palaeontologists sceptical of the gradualist model in his book God’s Undertaker including these two quite extraordinary quotes

Stephen Jay Gould:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.

Niles Eldridge:

We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while that it does not.

No wonder Dawkins, John Maynard Smith and others were so hostile in their attacks on Gould, et al. In what became known as the ‘Darwin wars’ Maynard Smith said Gould ‘is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.’

3. Why are a number of leading writers on science questioning the scientific consensus if the evidence is overwhelming?

a) Evolution: A theory in crisis – Dr. Michael Denton

Denton writes on his own website:

I have  never accepted the mainstream ‘Darwinian view’ that  life on earth and particularly mankind are the products of blind unintelligent processes.  I have  always been convinced and argued throughout my academic career that  our existence is ultimately a matter of design.  My primary intellectual aim has always been to show that the findings of science support the traditional teleological and anthropocentric view of  the world.

b) What Darwin Got Wrong by Jerry Fodor & Massimo Piattelli Palmorini

Here we find materialist atheists quite at odds with Dawkins. Here’s an extract from p.153,

“OK; so if Darwin got it wrong, what do you guys think is the mechanism of evolution?” Short answer: we don’t know what the mechanism of evolution is. As far as we can make out, nobody knows exactly how phenotypes evolve.

Mary Midgley in her review of the book in the Guardian newspaper writes

There is not – and does not have to be – any single, central mechanism of evolution. There are many such mechanisms, which all need to be investigated on their own terms. If one finds this kind of position reasonable, the interesting next question is, what has made it so hard to accept? What has kept this kind of dogmatic “Darwinism” – largely independent of its founder – afloat for so long, given that much of the material given here is by no means new?

The explanation for this might be the seductive myth that underlies it. That myth had its roots in Victorian social Darwinism but today it flows largely from two books – Jacques Monod’s Chance and Necessity(1971) and Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene (1976)

c) Why US? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves -  Dr. James Le Fanu

AN Wilson interviewed in the New Stateman reflects;

I think the jury is out about whether the theory of natural selection as defined by neo-Darwinians is true, and whether serious scientific doubts, as expressed in a new book Why Us? by James Le Fanu, deserve to be taken seriously. For example, does the discovery of the complex structure of DNA and the growth in knowledge in genetics require a rethink of Darwinian “gradualism”? But these are scientific rather than religious questions.

d) Shattering the Myths of Darwinism – Richard Milton

One Amazon reviewer comments:

Milton DOES NOT support creationism, he doesn’t even discount evolution as a scientific reality – he merely asks WHY the self-styled Darwinists and neo-Darwinists don’t stop mouthing off at anyone who disagrees with them and start finding some answers to these unanswered questions.
Alternatively, if Darwinism, in all its variations, CANNOT provide the answers, for goodness’ sake let’s move on and find a bigger and better theory.

4. Why have over 500 scientists expressed their concerns over the evidence for neo-Darwinian theories of evolution?

There is a myth circulating that a good knowledge of science and a careful consideration of the facts will compel any reasonable mind to accept Darwinian evolution.

If this is so why have over 500 scientists signed a statement which reads as follows;

We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’

A list of all names is available and prominent signatories  include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell, American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen, evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg, editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum – the oldest still published biology journal in the world – Giuseppe Sermonti and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

Conclusion

All I have sort to demonstrate is

1. There are a significant, if relatively small, number of sceptics within the scientific community. There remain some who are yet to be convinced of Darwinian evolution as an all-encompassing theory.

2. The vast majority of sources I’ve considered are atheists. This is a scientific argument on which atheists and theists alike are divide.

3. It is inconceivable that such a number should be regarded as simply ‘wrong’ and dismissed as simply demonstrating a culpable ignorance of the evidence.

4. There exists still room for doubt and for someone such as William Lane Craig to declare himself agnostic ( and NOT opposed) towards evolution is intellectually credible.

Post-script: The limits to our understanding

Dr. James Le Fanu in ‘Why Us? How Science rediscovered the mystery of ourselves’ concludes:

The greatest obstacle to scientific progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge

If the history of science teaches us anything it is that we are wise not to presume to know too much not least as certain scientific ‘facts’ have to in some instances be modified and in others have to give way to new theories based on a better understanding.

May 30, 2011
neil

Is this man worth $32.17 an hour? Lessons in evangelism from Joshua Bell

I’m reading a great book called Bringing the gospel home by Randy Newman (just one chapter to go and I’ll be blogging on it later this week).

At one point in the book Newman tells the story of how Joshua Bell, the virtuoso violinist, was persuaded by the Washington Post to busk in a metro station in Washington DC.

Newman writes:

More than a thousand people walked by without glancing in his direction. A few paused for a moment, and several people tossed  loose change into his open violin case. ( He collected a total of $32.17. Yes, some people gave him pennies!) Only one person recognized the star who, just a few nights later, would accept the Avery Fisher Prize for being the best classical musician in America.

Joshua Bell’s reflected in the Washington Post feature

“I’m surprised at the number of people who don’t pay attention at all, as if I’m invisible. Because, you know what? I’m makin’ a lot of noise!”

Four possible lessons for the church

1. Feeling invisible?

We’re not exactly world-renowned violinists but I dare say we feel like Bell when we know that what is being offered is a glorious and beautiful gospel. Surely people will stop and listen. Surely people will recognise that this message is something to stop and consider.

2. Avoidance

The Washington Post adds:

Bell wonders whether their inattention may be deliberate: If you don’t take visible note of the musician, you don’t have to feel guilty about not forking over money.

Theologically speaking we shouldn’t be surprised that many people cross the road to avoid Christians! It’s noteable that the Washington Post called the feature ‘Pearls before breakfast’ invoking those words of Jesus ‘do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces’ (Matthew 7:6).

3. Context is as important as content

There are reasons why classical musicians don’t perform concerts in subway stations. The context is all wrong. It’s not a place conducive to stopping and listening it’s a place for passing through as you get to A to B.

So how about our meetings? How do we create space where people can be encouraged to stop and listen? And does that space invite contemplation and consideration of the beauty of the gospel?

Might that suggest we need to create new settings in which to ‘play our music’?

4. A context that doesn’t contradict our message

Imagine a situation in which Joshua Bell is playing but the music is drowned out by ‘musac’ playing over the Tannoy speakers, competing and drowning out his playing. You can’t even stop and listen to him play even if you wanted to.

Do we as churches compete with and contradict the music of the gospel creating a confusing cacophony of noise that no-one in their right mind would want to stop for? Newman suggests that’s what we might be doing.

We speak of measureless love, unmerited grace, and infinite goodness but our tone of voice, demeanor, and lifestyles convey the exact opposite. We want people to quiet their hearts so they can hear the music of the gospel, but we’re performing in a context of judgementalism. We want them to feel loved by God, but they fell unloved by us. We want then to be amazed by grace but they can’t get past the smell of condemnation.

Do our gatherings seem to say more ‘hey, come and listen to this – it’s incredible’ or do they say ‘why haven’t you given anything to this’?

May 28, 2011
neil

The New Statesman on why Dawkins disappoints and the man who ‘eats atheists for breakfast’

‘There has never been a really convincing philosophical argument for the non-existence of God’

I don’t agree with all of it’s conclusions but an interesting read not least for recognising the failure of new atheism to defend their cause with any great ability.

May 27, 2011
neil

The one thing Barack Obama and David Cameron didn’t talk about

Never mind ‘the Beast’ Christine Odone spots an elephant in the room.

May 26, 2011
neil

Innovation comes at a price but what if that price is a piece of ourselves?

A fascinating article on digital media and what it is doing to us in the New York Times.

Bill Keller, Executive editor of the Times, declares himself to be no luddite but in a week in which he introduced his 13 year old daughter to Facebook he writes of the unforeseen, unintended consequences of pursuing digital technology;

My inner worrywart wonders whether the new technologies overtaking us may be eroding characteristics that are essentially human: our ability to reflect, our pursuit of meaning, genuine empathy, a sense of community connected by something deeper than snark or political affinity.’

The shortcomings of social media would not bother me awfully if I did not suspect that Facebook friendship and Twitter chatter are displacing real rapport and real conversation, just as Gutenberg’s device displaced remembering. The things we may be unlearning, tweet by tweet — complexity, acuity, patience, wisdom, intimacy — are things that matter.’

Pages:«1...42434445464748...62»
Facebook Twitter RSS Feed