I have moved.
Literally, and figuratively, but I now live in Colorado. I'm keeping a travel journal, which can be found here.
Please, read on!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Fighting Adopted Ignorance: A Response to Criticism of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
These are Neil Boortz’s published (and uncited) reasons for discounting the widely accepted theory of anthropogenic global climate change (a much more accurate term than the outdated “Global Warming”), and my subsequent responses. It should be noted that although I’ve studied a good deal of science, I am in no way an expert (but neither is he). Most of my study has been focused on ecology, not climatology, so I’ll be referring to the peer-reviewed expert opinions of others as much as possible. My responses in bold. References at the end. Enjoi
· The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short, I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.
o I just have a hard time agreeing with this, since the United States basically is the political and economic power behind the U.N. Not to mention the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the U.N.’s initiative research group for the topic) is hardly the only organization conceding to the evidence for global climate change and its anthropogenic origins. See: USEPA (anti-American?), Pew Center on Global Climate Change, U.S. Global Change Information office (little outdated, but provides some good perspective)
· Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.
o I just want to see the basis for these claims. No citation, no credibility Neil.
· Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.
o Again, where is the information on the temperature of the sun coming from? And what is the degree to which the sun is warmer? How was the data on the sun’s temperature collected? When the report(s) was published, was it peer reviewed? All of these questions play a vital role in determining the value of the claim that “the sun is warmer,” and until they are addressed, this line can be discounted.
· The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
o We’ll ignore the lack of citations here because this is simply an example of lacking logic. Though it seems like the temperature of mars would directly relate to the earth, there is no evidence to suggest that. It certainly could, but I could find no research that suggests that it is. Until then, noting changing conditions on Mars is just noting changing conditions on another planet, for which there could be innumerable explanations that have absolutely nothing to do with why the climate on our planet is changing so drastically. You cannot compare unlike entities without impetus—it is just poor science.
· It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.
o First of all, no citation, so no way to be sure this data is true. However, in the time scale over which warming and cooling trends are assessed and addressed, 1930 might as well have been yesterday. If we’re in a 100 year cooling microtrend it makes sense that the 1930’s would have been warmer. Again, it is poor science to examine a spike or an abhorrent data point as a solitary reason…the science of climatology is based on trends, and a ten year spike means little when compared to the entire aggregate warming trend (Jones 2004).
· It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?
o Um…well, people being wrong in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re wrong in the future. Under the auspices of your implicit argument, I could examine round-earth supporters Copernicus won over and wonder, “weren’t these very same scientists claiming the earth was flat not very long ago?”
· How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
o This is just an example of ignorance. One degree of average temperature change in a single century is unprecedented and hasn’t been observed since before the earth supported human life (Jones 2004).
· Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.
o There are plenty of other graphs. See: Jones 2004, Brohan 2006, Schmunk 2008
· The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.
o True, but what do the inefficacies of a body of “legislation” have to do with the validity of a scientific theory?
· The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.
o And can just as easily be seen as an attempt to responsibly reevaluate the global industrial and political perspective on energy use, unchecked emissions and environmental responsibility. It is all a matter of perspective, Neil.
· Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.
o Yes, but this is reflexive: many of the people opposing the theory would be financially impacted by tighter environmental controls and would, realistically, have to make some significant lifestyle changes, so there is a lot of motivation to dishonestly oppose it. Also, the scientific community’s peer-review process does a great deal to abate biases, while the industrial and corporate community has little incentive or measure for doing away with theirs.
· Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.
o Gross generalization and rhetorical spiking may work on radio talk shows, but it is not reasonable in debate. This point either needs to be expounded or will be disregarded.
· What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
o It isn’t gone, it just isn’t identified by marker. Still right there in the data (IPCC 2001).
· Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
o One scientist does not discount or affect the work of thousands. Plus, who said this, and when? A name and source would be nice every once in a while.
· Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?
o Huh? According to whom is it getting thicker? (I have an image file that appears in the print version, but I can't figure out how to get it on here. Expect me to update when I do)
· In the United States, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.
o Geographically limited data doesn’t mean much when you’re talking about global aggregate temperatures.
· There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
o If they’ve never been visited or measured, how can you know that they’re growing? Again, a source?
· Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.
o I can’t comment on this one…I don’t have the qualifications to interpret the data, especially without seeing what the expert opinion of its publisher is. Once again, I’d really like to see the source.
· Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.
o Yes, the earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, and lots of ice has been melting, mostly due to natural methane (Walter 2006, Mongabay 2006). What we’re concerned about is the increasing rate of sea level rise.
· Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
o Again, according to whom? Are you sure you’re looking at the data correctly? Have you ever heard of “Moulins?”
· Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.
o Really? I haven’t seen the data that suggests that.
· During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.
o See above argument about over emphasizing the importance of data spikes.
· Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
o Because NPR are assholes, but they do not determine the temperature of the earth.
· Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
o I don’t think anyone is insisting that. I think what people are insisting is that we have enough data to make us pretty worried, so the time is now (or 100 years ago) to change our habits of consumption.
It comes down to this…in the end, what does it hurt? The initial economy? Most policies that have to do with reducing consumption will actually streamline business and encourage efficiency, so the long term fiscal effects are likely to be positive (lower capital required to run the business, despite higher initial capital of a changeover). Let’s be honest here Neil, who and what does it hurt to make these changes, especially when the alternative is potentially so severe? An economy doesn’t do much good if our species is extinct.
References:
Brohan, P., J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. B. Tett, and P. D. Jones. "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850." Journal of Geophysical Research 111 (2006).
IPCC. Variations of the Earth's Surface Temperature for the Past 1000 Years. Raw data. 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/slides/large/05.16.jpg
Jones, P. D., and M. E. Mann. "Climate Over Past Millenia." Reviews of Geophysics 42 (2004).
Mongabay. "Methane Emissions Rising, Could Worsen Global Warming." Mongabay. 27 Sept. 2006. University of California, Los Angeles..
Morgan, Granger, and Tom Smuts. "Global Warming and Climate Change." U.S. Global Change Research Information Office. 4 Feb. 2004. Carnegie Mellon University..
Schmunk, Robert B., ed. "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis." Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 06 July 2008. NASA.
"Science & Impacts." Global Climate Change. 2008. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change..
USEPA. "Science." Climate Change. 20 Dec. 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency..
Walter, K. M., S. A. Zimov, J. P. Chanton, D. Verbyla, and F. S. Chapin. "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming." Nature 443 (2006): 71-75.
· The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short, I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.
o I just have a hard time agreeing with this, since the United States basically is the political and economic power behind the U.N. Not to mention the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the U.N.’s initiative research group for the topic) is hardly the only organization conceding to the evidence for global climate change and its anthropogenic origins. See: USEPA (anti-American?), Pew Center on Global Climate Change, U.S. Global Change Information office (little outdated, but provides some good perspective)
· Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.
o I just want to see the basis for these claims. No citation, no credibility Neil.
· Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.
o Again, where is the information on the temperature of the sun coming from? And what is the degree to which the sun is warmer? How was the data on the sun’s temperature collected? When the report(s) was published, was it peer reviewed? All of these questions play a vital role in determining the value of the claim that “the sun is warmer,” and until they are addressed, this line can be discounted.
· The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
o We’ll ignore the lack of citations here because this is simply an example of lacking logic. Though it seems like the temperature of mars would directly relate to the earth, there is no evidence to suggest that. It certainly could, but I could find no research that suggests that it is. Until then, noting changing conditions on Mars is just noting changing conditions on another planet, for which there could be innumerable explanations that have absolutely nothing to do with why the climate on our planet is changing so drastically. You cannot compare unlike entities without impetus—it is just poor science.
· It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.
o First of all, no citation, so no way to be sure this data is true. However, in the time scale over which warming and cooling trends are assessed and addressed, 1930 might as well have been yesterday. If we’re in a 100 year cooling microtrend it makes sense that the 1930’s would have been warmer. Again, it is poor science to examine a spike or an abhorrent data point as a solitary reason…the science of climatology is based on trends, and a ten year spike means little when compared to the entire aggregate warming trend (Jones 2004).
· It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?
o Um…well, people being wrong in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re wrong in the future. Under the auspices of your implicit argument, I could examine round-earth supporters Copernicus won over and wonder, “weren’t these very same scientists claiming the earth was flat not very long ago?”
· How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
o This is just an example of ignorance. One degree of average temperature change in a single century is unprecedented and hasn’t been observed since before the earth supported human life (Jones 2004).
· Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.
o There are plenty of other graphs. See: Jones 2004, Brohan 2006, Schmunk 2008
· The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.
o True, but what do the inefficacies of a body of “legislation” have to do with the validity of a scientific theory?
· The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.
o And can just as easily be seen as an attempt to responsibly reevaluate the global industrial and political perspective on energy use, unchecked emissions and environmental responsibility. It is all a matter of perspective, Neil.
· Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.
o Yes, but this is reflexive: many of the people opposing the theory would be financially impacted by tighter environmental controls and would, realistically, have to make some significant lifestyle changes, so there is a lot of motivation to dishonestly oppose it. Also, the scientific community’s peer-review process does a great deal to abate biases, while the industrial and corporate community has little incentive or measure for doing away with theirs.
· Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.
o Gross generalization and rhetorical spiking may work on radio talk shows, but it is not reasonable in debate. This point either needs to be expounded or will be disregarded.
· What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
o It isn’t gone, it just isn’t identified by marker. Still right there in the data (IPCC 2001).
· Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
o One scientist does not discount or affect the work of thousands. Plus, who said this, and when? A name and source would be nice every once in a while.
· Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?
o Huh? According to whom is it getting thicker? (I have an image file that appears in the print version, but I can't figure out how to get it on here. Expect me to update when I do)
· In the United States, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.
o Geographically limited data doesn’t mean much when you’re talking about global aggregate temperatures.
· There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
o If they’ve never been visited or measured, how can you know that they’re growing? Again, a source?
· Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.
o I can’t comment on this one…I don’t have the qualifications to interpret the data, especially without seeing what the expert opinion of its publisher is. Once again, I’d really like to see the source.
· Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.
o Yes, the earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, and lots of ice has been melting, mostly due to natural methane (Walter 2006, Mongabay 2006). What we’re concerned about is the increasing rate of sea level rise.
· Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
o Again, according to whom? Are you sure you’re looking at the data correctly? Have you ever heard of “Moulins?”
· Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.
o Really? I haven’t seen the data that suggests that.
· During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.
o See above argument about over emphasizing the importance of data spikes.
· Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
o Because NPR are assholes, but they do not determine the temperature of the earth.
· Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
o I don’t think anyone is insisting that. I think what people are insisting is that we have enough data to make us pretty worried, so the time is now (or 100 years ago) to change our habits of consumption.
It comes down to this…in the end, what does it hurt? The initial economy? Most policies that have to do with reducing consumption will actually streamline business and encourage efficiency, so the long term fiscal effects are likely to be positive (lower capital required to run the business, despite higher initial capital of a changeover). Let’s be honest here Neil, who and what does it hurt to make these changes, especially when the alternative is potentially so severe? An economy doesn’t do much good if our species is extinct.
References:
Brohan, P., J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. B. Tett, and P. D. Jones. "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850." Journal of Geophysical Research 111 (2006).
IPCC. Variations of the Earth's Surface Temperature for the Past 1000 Years. Raw data. 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/slides/large/05.16.jpg
Jones, P. D., and M. E. Mann. "Climate Over Past Millenia." Reviews of Geophysics 42 (2004).
Mongabay. "Methane Emissions Rising, Could Worsen Global Warming." Mongabay. 27 Sept. 2006. University of California, Los Angeles.
Morgan, Granger, and Tom Smuts. "Global Warming and Climate Change." U.S. Global Change Research Information Office. 4 Feb. 2004. Carnegie Mellon University.
Schmunk, Robert B., ed. "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis." Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 06 July 2008. NASA.
"Science & Impacts." Global Climate Change. 2008. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
USEPA. "Science." Climate Change. 20 Dec. 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Walter, K. M., S. A. Zimov, J. P. Chanton, D. Verbyla, and F. S. Chapin. "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming." Nature 443 (2006): 71-75.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Rally ‘Round the Family With Pockets Full of Shells
Recently, a friend of mine acquired one of the new iPhone handhelds. I was checking it out, and it really is pretty cool; lots of interesting features are packed into one device, streamlining an experience that normally takes at least a cell phone and a computer.
After playing around with it, however, I began to think about how the machine works. And not just the iPhone: many “advanced” technologies that are being integrated with increasing regularity into our daily lives such as internet routers, streaming data, fibre-optics, liquid-crystal displays, and computers with amazing degrees of autonomy. All of these technologies seem to serve that same end of streamlining the experience of life. They make for easier, broader communication, lighter workloads, and exponentially greater information availability than existed without them. There is, however, a byproduct that I think is largely ignored.
Dependence.
Allow me to explain. If I’m using an axe and the handle breaks, I can easily diagnose the problem and repair it myself by purchasing or making another handle. If my pants rip, it is completely within the scope of my abilities to patch them. Even in the event of problems with more complex technologies such as my car or lawnmower or the HVAC in my house, I can usually at least make a close judgment on the source of my strife, and often times can even be the one to return it to working order. These faculties are not mentioned as an attempt to play myself as a particularly handy lad...anyone can do those things with a relatively small amount of training. Fixing any of those items relies on basic motor skills, some minor tools and some common sense.
Enter my cell phone(s). Since my first cell phone about six years ago, I’ve had a total of three service plans and something like nine different cell phone units. Three of the cell phones I got because of subscribing to a service, but the other six have been replacement phones. I’m terrible about losing, breaking, dropping and otherwise destroying phones, the same way that I am with shirts and hatchets. Where I can fix my shirts and my hatchet, repairing my cell phone is completely beyond my skill set. I think that that is reasonable to assume for the vast majority of cell phone users, as well. It is unlikely that the average cell phone service subscriber has the knowledge, tools, or training to fix a broken phone unit. The solution to breakage, then, is to ship one’s phone back to a supplier and either have that unit repaired, or have a replacement sent (and the replacements are typically a “reconditioned” item, i.e. someone else’s broken unit that the smart people at the factory were able to get working again). Due to the complexity of the technology that is within a cell phone, consumers are more or less forced into this course of action for repair. They are completely dependent upon the higher skills, knowledge, and implements of someone else in order to continue operating their normal life. This isn’t limited to the repair side, either. If all that I have is a cell phone unit, I don’t know how to sync it with a service provider; I need someone else to do that for me. On a daily basis my use of a cell phone requires hundreds of workers maintaining a complex network of towers, wires, and waves (haven’t you seen the Verizon commercials?). So the use of a cell phone constitutes a pretty high level of dependence on a large number of other people.
I believe in the tradition of the American spirit. I believe that the principles of self-reliance and independence and freedom that were the foundational elements of our nation are some of the strongest ideals that have ever constituted a government. I also think that the gradual shift toward greater dependence upon the government by the populace is one of the most frightening prospects that we face today. I don’t care to have my moral choices regulated by the lawmakers in Washington, and I think that I can much more effectively care for the poor and needy than the welfare system. I want to be free and independent. So given that moral frame, the idea that the computer at which I sit to type this is a source of dependence on so many others does not settle. I cannot say that, without qualification, I think that increasing technology is bad, but I have to wonder if it as great a thing as we all believe.
Wendell Berry talks about these ideas a lot. In Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community he says, on the subject of “global thinking” (which we can analog with technology by way of the fact that, in the way that he means it, it is both dependent upon and a result of the advancement of technology) “if we want to put local life in proper relation to the globe, we must do so by imagination, charity, and forbearance and by making local life as competent, independent, and self-sufficient as possible—not by the presumptuous abstractions of ‘global thought.’” It is debilitating to the individual to have to outsource in order to function. In fact, it is not simply debilitating, it is counterintuitive and diametrically opposed to the very nature of the individual. Outsourcing and dependence make for the loss of individuality. If you don’t give a shit about individuality, then I suppose that this shouldn’t be an issue. I, however, am driven to distaste since individuality and thoughtfulness are two things that I have made focal points of my life pursuit.
So where does that leave me in the practical sense? It is fine to say what I have said, but can I really just drop all the technology of which I do not have a working knowledge? I don’t know if I am ready to do that just yet. I am inclined, however, to make myself more knowledgeable about those pieces of technology that are most central to my life. I am also inclined to attempt to reduce the level of dependence I have on those pieces themselves, so that it less of an issue if something which I cannot repair myself comes up. I’ll start there.
Go in peace and simplicity.
spencer
-Wendell Berry-
After playing around with it, however, I began to think about how the machine works. And not just the iPhone: many “advanced” technologies that are being integrated with increasing regularity into our daily lives such as internet routers, streaming data, fibre-optics, liquid-crystal displays, and computers with amazing degrees of autonomy. All of these technologies seem to serve that same end of streamlining the experience of life. They make for easier, broader communication, lighter workloads, and exponentially greater information availability than existed without them. There is, however, a byproduct that I think is largely ignored.
Dependence.
Allow me to explain. If I’m using an axe and the handle breaks, I can easily diagnose the problem and repair it myself by purchasing or making another handle. If my pants rip, it is completely within the scope of my abilities to patch them. Even in the event of problems with more complex technologies such as my car or lawnmower or the HVAC in my house, I can usually at least make a close judgment on the source of my strife, and often times can even be the one to return it to working order. These faculties are not mentioned as an attempt to play myself as a particularly handy lad...anyone can do those things with a relatively small amount of training. Fixing any of those items relies on basic motor skills, some minor tools and some common sense.
Enter my cell phone(s). Since my first cell phone about six years ago, I’ve had a total of three service plans and something like nine different cell phone units. Three of the cell phones I got because of subscribing to a service, but the other six have been replacement phones. I’m terrible about losing, breaking, dropping and otherwise destroying phones, the same way that I am with shirts and hatchets. Where I can fix my shirts and my hatchet, repairing my cell phone is completely beyond my skill set. I think that that is reasonable to assume for the vast majority of cell phone users, as well. It is unlikely that the average cell phone service subscriber has the knowledge, tools, or training to fix a broken phone unit. The solution to breakage, then, is to ship one’s phone back to a supplier and either have that unit repaired, or have a replacement sent (and the replacements are typically a “reconditioned” item, i.e. someone else’s broken unit that the smart people at the factory were able to get working again). Due to the complexity of the technology that is within a cell phone, consumers are more or less forced into this course of action for repair. They are completely dependent upon the higher skills, knowledge, and implements of someone else in order to continue operating their normal life. This isn’t limited to the repair side, either. If all that I have is a cell phone unit, I don’t know how to sync it with a service provider; I need someone else to do that for me. On a daily basis my use of a cell phone requires hundreds of workers maintaining a complex network of towers, wires, and waves (haven’t you seen the Verizon commercials?). So the use of a cell phone constitutes a pretty high level of dependence on a large number of other people.
I believe in the tradition of the American spirit. I believe that the principles of self-reliance and independence and freedom that were the foundational elements of our nation are some of the strongest ideals that have ever constituted a government. I also think that the gradual shift toward greater dependence upon the government by the populace is one of the most frightening prospects that we face today. I don’t care to have my moral choices regulated by the lawmakers in Washington, and I think that I can much more effectively care for the poor and needy than the welfare system. I want to be free and independent. So given that moral frame, the idea that the computer at which I sit to type this is a source of dependence on so many others does not settle. I cannot say that, without qualification, I think that increasing technology is bad, but I have to wonder if it as great a thing as we all believe.
Wendell Berry talks about these ideas a lot. In Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community he says, on the subject of “global thinking” (which we can analog with technology by way of the fact that, in the way that he means it, it is both dependent upon and a result of the advancement of technology) “if we want to put local life in proper relation to the globe, we must do so by imagination, charity, and forbearance and by making local life as competent, independent, and self-sufficient as possible—not by the presumptuous abstractions of ‘global thought.’” It is debilitating to the individual to have to outsource in order to function. In fact, it is not simply debilitating, it is counterintuitive and diametrically opposed to the very nature of the individual. Outsourcing and dependence make for the loss of individuality. If you don’t give a shit about individuality, then I suppose that this shouldn’t be an issue. I, however, am driven to distaste since individuality and thoughtfulness are two things that I have made focal points of my life pursuit.
So where does that leave me in the practical sense? It is fine to say what I have said, but can I really just drop all the technology of which I do not have a working knowledge? I don’t know if I am ready to do that just yet. I am inclined, however, to make myself more knowledgeable about those pieces of technology that are most central to my life. I am also inclined to attempt to reduce the level of dependence I have on those pieces themselves, so that it less of an issue if something which I cannot repair myself comes up. I’ll start there.
Go in peace and simplicity.
spencer
“But abstraction, of course, is what is wrong. The evil of the industrial economy (capitalist or communist) is the abstractness inherent in its procedures—its inability to distinguish one place or person or creature from another. William Blake saw this two hundred years ago. Anyone can see it now in the application of almost any of our common industrial tools and weapons.”
-Wendell Berry-
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Comfort Will Never Be Comfortable for Those Who Seek What is Not On the Market
I have come upon a problem, and my analysis of the problem leads me to believe that it is not restricted to my own psyche, but rather, is reflective of the culture under which I have been raised.
I sit here, studying for a midterm test for a class that is essentially about helping developing countries. Most of the lectures and discussions describe the needs of people in some war-torn or poverty-stricken country, and what is being done to meet those needs. Being a class offered through the forestry department, the focus is primarily ethnobotanical, and includes scores of statistics, graphs, and charts. For instance, under the heading “Global Population Size, Consumption, and Poverty” the following facts and figures can be found:
• 6 billion people in the world today; estimates for 10-20 billion by the end of the 21st century
• 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty—basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter are not met
This is from my lecture notes, and I don’t have the source written down, so I’m going to break all my rules and just forgo citation for now; you’ll see that it really is irrelevant to my point anyhow. Assuming, however, that since these were given in class that they’re from a fairly credible source, you did read that right: almost ONE QUARTER of the entire population of the earth is not even covered, fed, and/or clothed. Allow me to stop you there.
When my eyes grazed those numbers, my immediate reaction was to question how many times the smaller number fit into the larger one. Then I formed the sentence that follows the colon in the previous paragraph. Upon forming this sentence, my mind blossomed with images from national geographic of bloated little African children lying naked and hungry at the feet of aged mothers and skeletal fathers. That’s where my thought process shifted to something that was effectively, “What can be done?” which evoked more images of stacks of cash on the order of millions of dollars being delivered to some feed-the-children organization, enabling them to, well, feed the children.
Therein lies the problem of which I earlier spoke. When presented with statistics, I respond with statistics. Even though the response within me was fraught with emotional images and a philanthropic desire to repair the statistical error expressed by those numbers, there is no mental exploration provoked by the numbers. They have effectively allowed me to take an issue that, expressed in terms of the individual, references a man who does not even have the strength to type what I have thus far, and turn it into a collage of still shadowed images and cold bar graphs, something to be met with an increase in funding. I have quantified the world’s poor and have decided on a quantifiable response that allows to me help without having to get too close. I can join that internet group about Saving Darfur and suddenly, I’m a philanthropist without even knowing what Darfur is. Isn’t that a little bit sick?
The truth is, what those statistics say is that there is a man huddled beneath the awning of a public bathroom in Central Park against the cold and the rain. He is dying because he only has a pair of old leather shoes which he found in a trash can in the 80’s on 5th, a pair of jeans which are the only remnant of his old life as a longshoreman, and a long-sleeved cotton t-shirt that was probably white a few years ago. He is dying because a competing survivalist swiped the five dollars that our hero had found caught on the edge of a trashcan near the zoo, and he doesn’t have the strength or resources left to catch any more squirrels.
The statistics talk about a young woman who has been left with her seven younger siblings because the heat of the desert has suckled away her parents already. She has no shirt to protect her from sun poisoning because she has wrapped her infant brother in it to keep his soft, black skin from the ravenous Sahalien. She made a lucky find in some Cairo syrup left by a missionary, and she mixes it with dirt and doles it out in rations to her inadvertent brood. She is not dead yet, but her strength and will cannot hold much longer.
The failing of throwing around statistics to describe a problem is the distance that it creates between the individuals who daily suffer what we cannot even fathom and us, the individuals who have the benefit of the opportunity to reach out and help. The voicing of stats, facts and figures displays all the hunger pains and weakness and terror and sadness as colourful bars on a graph. They allow us to satisfy the emotional discord caused by the statistical disequilibrium presented with a dollar amount or a 5-hour community service outreach. They allow us to tell ourselves that we have done our part, and we’re globally concerned individuals. Since statistics themselves operate in a mathematically real field and they have finite limits, they allow us to think that such things as terror or sadness or despair are finite. Of course none of us would ever consciously think that, and I am not attempting to point out a moral failing of society, but I hope to shed light upon an area where we unwittingly limit ourselves.
I am not attempting to undermine the efforts of the thousands of charity and human rights organizations around the world; rather I commend them and theirs for their willingness to face the problems with eyes open. Neither do I speak hoping to curb people’s giving to these organizations, either temporally or fiscally. What I hope to bring about is an understanding that there is no ending to this story. People will continue to die in poverty long after we have spent our last breath. Ecosystems will continue to be shattered by invasions when our last dollars have gone. Civil wars will still rend the social and physical landscape of the globe when my body has returned to the earth.
We must remember that the man shivering beneath the awning shivers alone, without the company of the other 1.3 billion like him. The sister matron does not have a quarter of the world’s population helping to keep her crying charges from death’s grip. There is no quantifying these problems. They affect individuals, and it is of great import to realize that our duty to serve these individuals does not have a quota. When we help, in whatever way, we are not shrinking the bars on a graph. We are delivering a profound joy to eyes that for so long have seen only dark.
Forward
-Spencer-
"Our eyesight is here as a test to see if we can see beyond it."
I sit here, studying for a midterm test for a class that is essentially about helping developing countries. Most of the lectures and discussions describe the needs of people in some war-torn or poverty-stricken country, and what is being done to meet those needs. Being a class offered through the forestry department, the focus is primarily ethnobotanical, and includes scores of statistics, graphs, and charts. For instance, under the heading “Global Population Size, Consumption, and Poverty” the following facts and figures can be found:
• 6 billion people in the world today; estimates for 10-20 billion by the end of the 21st century
• 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty—basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter are not met
This is from my lecture notes, and I don’t have the source written down, so I’m going to break all my rules and just forgo citation for now; you’ll see that it really is irrelevant to my point anyhow. Assuming, however, that since these were given in class that they’re from a fairly credible source, you did read that right: almost ONE QUARTER of the entire population of the earth is not even covered, fed, and/or clothed. Allow me to stop you there.
When my eyes grazed those numbers, my immediate reaction was to question how many times the smaller number fit into the larger one. Then I formed the sentence that follows the colon in the previous paragraph. Upon forming this sentence, my mind blossomed with images from national geographic of bloated little African children lying naked and hungry at the feet of aged mothers and skeletal fathers. That’s where my thought process shifted to something that was effectively, “What can be done?” which evoked more images of stacks of cash on the order of millions of dollars being delivered to some feed-the-children organization, enabling them to, well, feed the children.
Therein lies the problem of which I earlier spoke. When presented with statistics, I respond with statistics. Even though the response within me was fraught with emotional images and a philanthropic desire to repair the statistical error expressed by those numbers, there is no mental exploration provoked by the numbers. They have effectively allowed me to take an issue that, expressed in terms of the individual, references a man who does not even have the strength to type what I have thus far, and turn it into a collage of still shadowed images and cold bar graphs, something to be met with an increase in funding. I have quantified the world’s poor and have decided on a quantifiable response that allows to me help without having to get too close. I can join that internet group about Saving Darfur and suddenly, I’m a philanthropist without even knowing what Darfur is. Isn’t that a little bit sick?
The truth is, what those statistics say is that there is a man huddled beneath the awning of a public bathroom in Central Park against the cold and the rain. He is dying because he only has a pair of old leather shoes which he found in a trash can in the 80’s on 5th, a pair of jeans which are the only remnant of his old life as a longshoreman, and a long-sleeved cotton t-shirt that was probably white a few years ago. He is dying because a competing survivalist swiped the five dollars that our hero had found caught on the edge of a trashcan near the zoo, and he doesn’t have the strength or resources left to catch any more squirrels.
The statistics talk about a young woman who has been left with her seven younger siblings because the heat of the desert has suckled away her parents already. She has no shirt to protect her from sun poisoning because she has wrapped her infant brother in it to keep his soft, black skin from the ravenous Sahalien. She made a lucky find in some Cairo syrup left by a missionary, and she mixes it with dirt and doles it out in rations to her inadvertent brood. She is not dead yet, but her strength and will cannot hold much longer.
The failing of throwing around statistics to describe a problem is the distance that it creates between the individuals who daily suffer what we cannot even fathom and us, the individuals who have the benefit of the opportunity to reach out and help. The voicing of stats, facts and figures displays all the hunger pains and weakness and terror and sadness as colourful bars on a graph. They allow us to satisfy the emotional discord caused by the statistical disequilibrium presented with a dollar amount or a 5-hour community service outreach. They allow us to tell ourselves that we have done our part, and we’re globally concerned individuals. Since statistics themselves operate in a mathematically real field and they have finite limits, they allow us to think that such things as terror or sadness or despair are finite. Of course none of us would ever consciously think that, and I am not attempting to point out a moral failing of society, but I hope to shed light upon an area where we unwittingly limit ourselves.
I am not attempting to undermine the efforts of the thousands of charity and human rights organizations around the world; rather I commend them and theirs for their willingness to face the problems with eyes open. Neither do I speak hoping to curb people’s giving to these organizations, either temporally or fiscally. What I hope to bring about is an understanding that there is no ending to this story. People will continue to die in poverty long after we have spent our last breath. Ecosystems will continue to be shattered by invasions when our last dollars have gone. Civil wars will still rend the social and physical landscape of the globe when my body has returned to the earth.
We must remember that the man shivering beneath the awning shivers alone, without the company of the other 1.3 billion like him. The sister matron does not have a quarter of the world’s population helping to keep her crying charges from death’s grip. There is no quantifying these problems. They affect individuals, and it is of great import to realize that our duty to serve these individuals does not have a quota. When we help, in whatever way, we are not shrinking the bars on a graph. We are delivering a profound joy to eyes that for so long have seen only dark.
Forward
-Spencer-
"Our eyesight is here as a test to see if we can see beyond it."
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Worms Will Live In Every Host
I'm going to use my website as a forum for discussion of the things that I see on other people's blogs. The context for this post can be found at
.
There are two posts that I'm going to respond to. The first one is from ChrisP:
I totally agree with what your first paragraph says. I think that the difference between you and I is that I believe that understanding is not immutable. I still believe, however, that we should act according to what we understand the scriptures say. Hypocrisy is a huge problem that I have been working to counter, both within the church and within myself. Blatant hypocrisy was actually the reason that I left the church several years ago (and returned with a truly believing heart).
That is pretty funny that someone called you a gnostic. I agree with your point in these paragraphs, also. The meaning of the gospels doesn't rise from their cultural and historical context. Sometimes I find that cultural context is helpful when reading Paul because so many of his writings were addressing culture, but even then, I think that works in a holistic approach to his principles much better than when deriving meaning from individual verses. I do believe that some objective meaning of the scriptures has contextual applications to us, like commands regarding modesty or alcohol consumption, but the contextualization occurs after the meaning has already been derived. So I'm pretty much with you.
You're right, I was making those assumptions, and I'm sorry. I became defensive because of them. I agree with you that God gave us the scriptures to be understood, again, you and I just disagree with on the concept of understanding. I can let that rest, however, seeing how many other points that you and I agree on. Thank you for such stimulating conversation. You are welcome to comment on my blog whenever; in fact, I look forward to it. You seem wise, and like someone who can catch the flaws in what I may say over here, so I hope to see you back.
Now, in response to Darrel:
Darrel, I don't have to convince myself. That's what I was saying with regard to the creeds and my baptism. They aren't what gives me salvation. As acts, they have no inherent power. They are useful, however, if I do question my salvation. I can return to the creeds and my baptism (as they both are statements of belief) and realize that I am grafted into God's grace, and am thus saved from my self. Please tell me how I am "dancing around the truth with my creeds?" I think that the creeds are a pretty clear statement of what I believe is the truth. Also, I'd love to see where you have the authority to question my salvation. Pretty sure that the Bible is pretty clear about you, as a human, not being able to know another man's heart.
I also love how you point to me using "great swelling words of vanity" and "doublespeak." Tell me, what is the syllable count that makes a word greatly swollen? We're having a conversation regarding theology. There's going to be big words used. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that God wants me to speak like an idiot, or use "little words" only. The words that I use are carefully chosen because they are the most specific representation of the thoughts within my head. I am attempting to circumvent linguistic shortcomings by tuning my phraseology to be as close to linearly interpretable as possible. In that pursuit, I am deliberately avoiding doublespeak. Since that word has three syllables, and is 11 letters long I'll forgive you for not understanding its meaning. Doublespeak is a propagandization technique that masks words' true meaning by way of connotative shift. Or, maybe I should say doublespeak makes mean words sound nice. When you're trying to identify it, look for ambiguous words that aren't very specific. I think you'll be hard pressed for find ambiguity in what I say. I don't understand why some people feel that it is valid in argument to bring up my use of complex syntax or ultra-specific verbiage. If you have a problem with big words, it is probably wise to stay away from discussions of theological nature.
I've also never seen someone use my writing style as a basis to question my faith. I think that's a pretty big stretch. And thank you Darrel for giving such a specific account of what happens when one becomes a Christian. I must not be a Christian: I hate reading the bible, and I love to sin. Sin sin sin! I get pretty excited when I realize that I am doing something that contributed to the pain and suffering of my saviour! (all of that was completely sarcastic).
I love to talk about and read the Bible. I think that this is a Godly pursuit. So when I reference the Bible in making a point, I think that it is a reflection of my desire to be Godly. I don't really understand how that is bad, but I'd love for you to tell me. Simple language though please.
I don't really know when Jesus is coming back because, like he says, "the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night." I'm pretty stoked about it, whenever it is, and I live "in the day" as Paul says (1 Thess. 5 NKJV).
I don't even know how to respond to you Darrel. You aren't even arguing anything. Its like you just got pissed at what I said or something and decided that to be distracting you'd question my faith. I don't really appreciate that, but whatever man. You're welcome to post over here too, as I consider my weblog a public platform and anyone can say anything they want, but I'm warning you, saying stuff like what you just did is just going to make people not listen to you.
Peace and good vibes everyone. I look forward to some responses.
In the Light
-Spencer
"We must always seek to ally ourselves with that part of the enemy that knows what is right”
-M. Ghandi-
.
There are two posts that I'm going to respond to. The first one is from ChrisP:
Spencer
You are reading into what I posted.
The scriptures are what Deut 29:29 is speaking of. God has given us His Word, His Law to hear, understand and perform. How can we keep His Word if we don’t understand it? The real disconnect in the church is not the emergent’s ancient/future connestion, it is the gap between hearing and doing.
Proverbs 3:
13Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
and the one who gets understanding,
14for the gain from her is better than gain from silver
and her profit better than gold.
This gap is caused by lack of understanding.
This is why there are so many useless arguments re: cultural and historical context etc.
God’s Word stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8)
This is why there is the rampant false teaching that any good work is God’s good work.
Cultural and historical context are not the primary means of sound exegesis. The text speaks for itself, and the Holy Spirit brings revelation.
I have been accused of being a modern gnostic as I believe that the Spirit and the Word work together, or it doesn’t work at all.
My accuser thinks we all have to be 1st century talmudic scholars to understand the bible.That would make God a rip-off.
You are assuming that I am criticizing your walk and where you are at in it. I am not, and I never said anything that should lead you to believe that it was I meant. You also assume that I am sayng I know everything about the Scripture. I never said that either. I said there are those who are farther along.
I am saying that the Scriptures are given to be understood, else the Lord is a cheat and a liar.
I am not even saying that I have never learned something in debating emerging types or whomever. Such debate drives me to the Word to gain undestanding, however that understanding does not necessarily mean I am going to accept another’s pov.
We are too hung up on “dialogue as changing each other’s minds”. That is not fellowship as I see it portrayed in the bible.
I totally agree with what your first paragraph says. I think that the difference between you and I is that I believe that understanding is not immutable. I still believe, however, that we should act according to what we understand the scriptures say. Hypocrisy is a huge problem that I have been working to counter, both within the church and within myself. Blatant hypocrisy was actually the reason that I left the church several years ago (and returned with a truly believing heart).
That is pretty funny that someone called you a gnostic. I agree with your point in these paragraphs, also. The meaning of the gospels doesn't rise from their cultural and historical context. Sometimes I find that cultural context is helpful when reading Paul because so many of his writings were addressing culture, but even then, I think that works in a holistic approach to his principles much better than when deriving meaning from individual verses. I do believe that some objective meaning of the scriptures has contextual applications to us, like commands regarding modesty or alcohol consumption, but the contextualization occurs after the meaning has already been derived. So I'm pretty much with you.
You're right, I was making those assumptions, and I'm sorry. I became defensive because of them. I agree with you that God gave us the scriptures to be understood, again, you and I just disagree with on the concept of understanding. I can let that rest, however, seeing how many other points that you and I agree on. Thank you for such stimulating conversation. You are welcome to comment on my blog whenever; in fact, I look forward to it. You seem wise, and like someone who can catch the flaws in what I may say over here, so I hope to see you back.
Now, in response to Darrel:
Spencer, I don’t know who you are trying to convince that all is O K with you and the Lord of heaven and earth-probably yourself. You’ll forgive me for lumping you in with all the other EC’ers, but you all sound alike. The double speak is a dead give-away. Dancing around the truth with your creeds is another. The “great swelling words of vanity” is the clincher. You can recite all the creeds of all time and be baptised a million times, but the question still remains: what has changed in your life since you claim to have met Christ? (I realize in saying that, that you have yet to make such a claim). Don’t forget, the devils in hell “believe” and tremble. They have enough sense to fear God, do you? You scare me, for I cannot help but think that maybe you are one of the ones who will say to our Lord “didn’t we prophesy in Your name and cast out devils in Your name? And the Lord will say to them ‘depart from me for I NEVER knew you’”. What is sin to you? Does the thought of sinning against our Lord repulse you or is it no big deal? Does the rememberance of former sin disgust you or is it no big deal? Are you plagued with same besetting sin over and over or has the Lord Jesus truly delivered you from your sin? What about the Word of God? Do you love to read it everyday or is the Bible just a tool to make your next point? Do you love the thought of the SOON return of the Lord Jesus or is it just a possible event in the far distant future? When Christ comes to dwell in your heart by faith things change. The things that you once loved you now hate. The things that you once hated you now love and even long for. You may boast of your knowledge, your creeds, your discernment, your baptism, but it would be far better to boast of Christ and Him alone. When that happens all of the double speak, words of wisdom and especially the pride will melt away and Jesus Christ will be honored. There won’t be any more arguments as to the virtues of the “emergent” church. When Christ is exalted it is easy to see the idol worship being forced on the people of God. I hope it is not your desire to be proven ‘right’. Rather, that in all things “He must increase and I must decrease”. May the Lord be gracious to you and save you from your sin.
Darrel, I don't have to convince myself. That's what I was saying with regard to the creeds and my baptism. They aren't what gives me salvation. As acts, they have no inherent power. They are useful, however, if I do question my salvation. I can return to the creeds and my baptism (as they both are statements of belief) and realize that I am grafted into God's grace, and am thus saved from my self. Please tell me how I am "dancing around the truth with my creeds?" I think that the creeds are a pretty clear statement of what I believe is the truth. Also, I'd love to see where you have the authority to question my salvation. Pretty sure that the Bible is pretty clear about you, as a human, not being able to know another man's heart.
I also love how you point to me using "great swelling words of vanity" and "doublespeak." Tell me, what is the syllable count that makes a word greatly swollen? We're having a conversation regarding theology. There's going to be big words used. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that God wants me to speak like an idiot, or use "little words" only. The words that I use are carefully chosen because they are the most specific representation of the thoughts within my head. I am attempting to circumvent linguistic shortcomings by tuning my phraseology to be as close to linearly interpretable as possible. In that pursuit, I am deliberately avoiding doublespeak. Since that word has three syllables, and is 11 letters long I'll forgive you for not understanding its meaning. Doublespeak is a propagandization technique that masks words' true meaning by way of connotative shift. Or, maybe I should say doublespeak makes mean words sound nice. When you're trying to identify it, look for ambiguous words that aren't very specific. I think you'll be hard pressed for find ambiguity in what I say. I don't understand why some people feel that it is valid in argument to bring up my use of complex syntax or ultra-specific verbiage. If you have a problem with big words, it is probably wise to stay away from discussions of theological nature.
I've also never seen someone use my writing style as a basis to question my faith. I think that's a pretty big stretch. And thank you Darrel for giving such a specific account of what happens when one becomes a Christian. I must not be a Christian: I hate reading the bible, and I love to sin. Sin sin sin! I get pretty excited when I realize that I am doing something that contributed to the pain and suffering of my saviour! (all of that was completely sarcastic).
I love to talk about and read the Bible. I think that this is a Godly pursuit. So when I reference the Bible in making a point, I think that it is a reflection of my desire to be Godly. I don't really understand how that is bad, but I'd love for you to tell me. Simple language though please.
I don't really know when Jesus is coming back because, like he says, "the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night." I'm pretty stoked about it, whenever it is, and I live "in the day" as Paul says (1 Thess. 5 NKJV).
I don't even know how to respond to you Darrel. You aren't even arguing anything. Its like you just got pissed at what I said or something and decided that to be distracting you'd question my faith. I don't really appreciate that, but whatever man. You're welcome to post over here too, as I consider my weblog a public platform and anyone can say anything they want, but I'm warning you, saying stuff like what you just did is just going to make people not listen to you.
Peace and good vibes everyone. I look forward to some responses.
In the Light
-Spencer
"We must always seek to ally ourselves with that part of the enemy that knows what is right”
-M. Ghandi-
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
To Be a Rock and Not to Roll
Occasionally I will use this weblog to post a response/reply to something that other people have said. This is one of those times. Ingrid at is posting again, and has some really interesting stuff up. This post is a response to her position on music.
Ingrid's Post:
My response:
The truth is Ingrid, what you’ve said here proves the anthropological point of whoever said that “it is all contextual.” Look at your first example: “I think it is safe to say the music used for a stripper show would not be acceptable as worship to God.” I’m not really even sure what kind of music you’re talking about (I’ve never actually been to a strip club), so given that, what I saw a stripper show and the girl was disrobing to an organ and hymns? Would that make that hymn unacceptable to God as worship then, because it had been used in a stripper show? That’s the converse of what you’re saying. I don’t think so, so how are you going to tell a saxophonist that his passion isn’t pleasing to God? You’re ascribing spirituality to the object of music here, which is quite the pantheistic thing to do.
How does music itself have a “message and attitude?” Please explain that one and remain faithful to your beliefs as a Christian. Music is just compression and expansion of air interpreted by our auditory systems. The “message” that you’re saying is intrinsic to music is actually just our emotional interpretation of those compressions and expansions. If music has lyrics, the lyrics may have a message, but the music itself doesn’t beyond what we, as listeners, ascribe to it. Without citing any research, I’m going to offer that that interpretation is culturally (and in my opinion personally) contextual. Please, provide for me an example of how rock music is “about our flesh.”
I think that it is very reasonable to think that some world-class rapper, or ballet dancer, or skateboarder, or contortionist would put on a show for a monarch, and I’m sure that many examples of that could be found within a few minutes on Google. Why shouldn’t we present the best of the talents that God has given us to Him? Are you saying that talents in playing the electric guitar or drums are evil?
You cannot circumvent the fact that your line of reasoning in this post is flawed. You’re viewing your culturally influenced interpretation of certain types of sounds as interchangeable with what pleases God. You cite no scripture to support your claims that these types of music are inherently evil, so it must be assumed that your assertion is based on your own personal conclusion. The implication is absolutely that your tastes are the same as God’s.
Some of these critiques I think you can make about an individual song or artist, but an entire style of music? I’m sorry, I just think you need a far more in-depth argument if you’re going to make that claim.
-Spencer-
Ingrid's Post:
A commenter on the post from Monday regarding the YouTube dancing boys claims that we can’t judge whether music is pleasing to God. I hear this often. “Don’t substitute your taste for God’s!” or, “Things vary from one culture to the next. It’s all contextual.” (This is the emerging church philosophy applied to music that’s been around for years.) Here is my response to “Neil” and his objections to passing judgment on music that purports to be worship.
On neutrality in music, I think it is safe to say the music used for a stripper show would not be acceptable as worship to God. Music itself has a message and an attitude. Haughtiness/arrogance, sensuality (think dirty sax), hard driving rock and death metal that speaks of hatred and wrath, the rebellion of rap, none of this speaks of holiness, majesty, honor and love for our monarch, Jesus Christ. The aforementioned music is about our flesh, all of it. Scripture tells us that those who are operating in the flesh cannot please God.
Further, can you imagine Queen Elizabeth II stepping out of the limo at the White House and being greeted by the sounds of a sleazy saxophone or some rapper with pants falling off, doing his street thing? She is a monarch. You don’t throw anything you want at a monarch and call it honor. How much more so for the King of kings, Lord of Lords? How dare we throw our filthy cultural music at Him and call it worship? It’s Cain worship that God will not receive. Those kids in the video have been trapped by the world and its system and it shows in every arrogant line of their moves and in the music Carman sings. I wonder how willing this bunch would be to identify as “People of God” if a terrorist or police squad waving guns kicked in their church door and asked for Christians to identify themselves. “All people of God, stand up! …and die.” The music is Carman’s and his self-adulation show is nauseating to watch. (Click here and see the video of his show.) I have seen video of his concerts where the women scream when he comes out as he flexes his muscles and struts his stuff in the name of Jesus. Please see the Tozer quote I posted yesterday. Flesh, exalting itself, in the name of exalting Christ. That, Neil, is blasphemous.
My response:
The truth is Ingrid, what you’ve said here proves the anthropological point of whoever said that “it is all contextual.” Look at your first example: “I think it is safe to say the music used for a stripper show would not be acceptable as worship to God.” I’m not really even sure what kind of music you’re talking about (I’ve never actually been to a strip club), so given that, what I saw a stripper show and the girl was disrobing to an organ and hymns? Would that make that hymn unacceptable to God as worship then, because it had been used in a stripper show? That’s the converse of what you’re saying. I don’t think so, so how are you going to tell a saxophonist that his passion isn’t pleasing to God? You’re ascribing spirituality to the object of music here, which is quite the pantheistic thing to do.
How does music itself have a “message and attitude?” Please explain that one and remain faithful to your beliefs as a Christian. Music is just compression and expansion of air interpreted by our auditory systems. The “message” that you’re saying is intrinsic to music is actually just our emotional interpretation of those compressions and expansions. If music has lyrics, the lyrics may have a message, but the music itself doesn’t beyond what we, as listeners, ascribe to it. Without citing any research, I’m going to offer that that interpretation is culturally (and in my opinion personally) contextual. Please, provide for me an example of how rock music is “about our flesh.”
I think that it is very reasonable to think that some world-class rapper, or ballet dancer, or skateboarder, or contortionist would put on a show for a monarch, and I’m sure that many examples of that could be found within a few minutes on Google. Why shouldn’t we present the best of the talents that God has given us to Him? Are you saying that talents in playing the electric guitar or drums are evil?
You cannot circumvent the fact that your line of reasoning in this post is flawed. You’re viewing your culturally influenced interpretation of certain types of sounds as interchangeable with what pleases God. You cite no scripture to support your claims that these types of music are inherently evil, so it must be assumed that your assertion is based on your own personal conclusion. The implication is absolutely that your tastes are the same as God’s.
Some of these critiques I think you can make about an individual song or artist, but an entire style of music? I’m sorry, I just think you need a far more in-depth argument if you’re going to make that claim.
-Spencer-
Jesus tapped me on the shoulder and said, Bob, why are you resisting me? I said, I'm not resisting you! He said, You gonna follow me? I said, I've never thought about that before! He said, When you're not following me, you're resisting me.
Friday, May 4, 2007
These Are Not Polite Suggestions
There is a notion that I have noticed becoming increasingly popular in the Evangelical church (but is no way limited to that body; I’m not pointing fingers here, just making a critical analysis). It is a notion which I find somewhat troublesome simply because I cannot uncover its purpose or its logic. This is the idea that doctrine is a bad thing.
My first question is, of course, why? Why has doctrine gained such a negative connotation in some modern churches? I think that it spawns out of the equation of doctrine with dogmatism and closed-mindedness. The Evangelical movement sort of bills itself as not settling on one denomination’s teaching or interpretation of scripture (thus the frequent “non-denominational” nomenclature), so I think that maybe it is an extension of that line of thought. Doctrine is associated with denomination, and it would be a terrible thing to close off the potential of valid viewpoints outside of one’s own, so this type of “doctrine” is rejected.
In response to that I must only sigh, because it is such an egregious logical fallacy. Allow me to explain:
doc·trine [dok-trin]
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Source: dictionary.com entry: “Doctrine”
So really, any discussion or opinion of the gospel is doctrine, purely and simply. One can attempt to remove the doctrinal concept from one’s church or belief structure, but it is effectively impossible. If one had a church without doctrine, one would not have a church. Anything that is taught is automatically doctrine.
What I’m getting at is that this view has a wrong conceptualization of the nature of doctrine. It sees doctrine as a frame or hermeneutical mode imposed upon the scriptures, when in fact, doctrine and truth are analogous. Christian doctrine, that is, the truth as proclaimed in the gospel, is an objective reality that we are responsible for discovering and discussing. We are also responsible for holding ourselves accountable to the truth, and since we are fundamentally depraved, our discussion is automatically subject to flaw. It is of utmost importance that we girder our readings of the scriptures with a comparison to those whom God has placed in pastoral and guiding authority. We must constantly check our understanding of scripture and Christian doctrine with that of our pastors, apologists, and ministers, who have been trained in the finding of truth. That’s the part of the whole “quiet time” concept that I think is missing. It’s dandy to read the Bible, and I’m not saying that God can’t or doesn’t reveal His truth by way of that, but just because you read the Bible and think that you’ve had some revelation or understanding doesn’t mean that it necessarily is God’s truth. You, as an interpreter, are responsible for checking yourself, or better yet, getting someone to check you.
Someone said something to me the other day about the words of a friend of mine being “saturated with doctrine” as if that was a negative thing. I challenge that directly. I think that straying away from having what one says being “saturated with doctrine” strays away from a firm stance in the truth. I hope that everything that I say is saturated, and I expect that if my reading of doctrine is off-base that someone will call me to question on it. Mine is the voracious pursuit of truth, and I will use all the help that I can get on the way to that end.
That is what I worry about in the trends that are surfacing in many modern churches: the idea that somehow doctrine will keep the Church from fulfilling its love portion of its mission. Somehow we’re putting making people feel comfortable over proclaiming the truth. Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on that. Our primary responsibility as saints and ministers of the word is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in spirit and in truth, in season and out of season. We’re not responsible for bringing people into the church building by streamlining or the imposition of “relevance.” God’s word is relevant. Truth is relevant. The danger of the church movements of today is that they seek to couch the truth in a package that won’t turn anyone away. The sad fact is that the truth, the real truth of Jesus Christ will be despised and rejected by men. This is its nature. Though He came offering salvation for all, not all will be saved. By changing the face of the truth to be more universally pleasing we in fact cut at the core of the truth. In our efforts to accept everyone, we try to make everyone acceptable, and this just can’t be so. I’ve been a big Bright Eyes fan for a long time, but I’m sorry, his music has no place being mentioned with positive review in a Christian magazine (Here’s a quote: “There is no truth. There is only you, and what you make the truth” or http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/brighteyes/whenthepresidenttalkstogod.html ). Conor Oberst is pretty open about his rejection of God, and though I would recommend his music to select listeners with discerning ears, for Relevant Magazine to endorse it is pretty frightening to me. I think that that is just one example of the rejection or refusal to hold the world to account of the truth in the name of coolness. “See, we’re a legit, edgy, cutting-edge magazine, and we’re Christian.” In that same magazine there is ten pages where multiple big-name megachurch pastors like Brian McLaren, Erwin McManus, and Rick Warren answer the “7 Big Questions for Christians Today” and in those ten pages, the Bible is not directly referenced even once. I’m sorry, but how do you answer the “Big Questions” of today without the Bible? I usually try to give the Emergent movement a lot of leeway (see my previous posts…I’ve gone to battle for some of these guys before) but in this case, I’m pretty disgusted. I mean, that is intellectually irresponsible. Who gives a shit what these guys’ opinions are? I want to know what God has to say are the answers to those big questions, and it makes me question the validity of their pastoral roles that they would even think to answer them without looking first to the bible. I encourage everyone to get a copy of that Relevant. It is the one with Ben Folds on the cover. You may be able to find the article in an archive on the site, I’ll check.
Anyway, my point is, the fear of doctrine is irrational, and leads to a dangerous take on Christian ministry. It is fine to love people and I think that that is a huge part of what Jesus’ ministry was about: going out of his way to find the people in the gutter and loving them. It absolutely cannot be overlooked, however, that when he found these people, he loved them by holding them to the standards of His truth, and expecting them to “go and sin no more.” My source for this is all four gospels. You should read them, they’re rocking.
Go forth in the way of the Truth. Seek it, and may it always light your path.
-Spencer-
“The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as is needed?”
My first question is, of course, why? Why has doctrine gained such a negative connotation in some modern churches? I think that it spawns out of the equation of doctrine with dogmatism and closed-mindedness. The Evangelical movement sort of bills itself as not settling on one denomination’s teaching or interpretation of scripture (thus the frequent “non-denominational” nomenclature), so I think that maybe it is an extension of that line of thought. Doctrine is associated with denomination, and it would be a terrible thing to close off the potential of valid viewpoints outside of one’s own, so this type of “doctrine” is rejected.
In response to that I must only sigh, because it is such an egregious logical fallacy. Allow me to explain:
doc·trine [dok-trin]
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Source: dictionary.com entry: “Doctrine”
So really, any discussion or opinion of the gospel is doctrine, purely and simply. One can attempt to remove the doctrinal concept from one’s church or belief structure, but it is effectively impossible. If one had a church without doctrine, one would not have a church. Anything that is taught is automatically doctrine.
What I’m getting at is that this view has a wrong conceptualization of the nature of doctrine. It sees doctrine as a frame or hermeneutical mode imposed upon the scriptures, when in fact, doctrine and truth are analogous. Christian doctrine, that is, the truth as proclaimed in the gospel, is an objective reality that we are responsible for discovering and discussing. We are also responsible for holding ourselves accountable to the truth, and since we are fundamentally depraved, our discussion is automatically subject to flaw. It is of utmost importance that we girder our readings of the scriptures with a comparison to those whom God has placed in pastoral and guiding authority. We must constantly check our understanding of scripture and Christian doctrine with that of our pastors, apologists, and ministers, who have been trained in the finding of truth. That’s the part of the whole “quiet time” concept that I think is missing. It’s dandy to read the Bible, and I’m not saying that God can’t or doesn’t reveal His truth by way of that, but just because you read the Bible and think that you’ve had some revelation or understanding doesn’t mean that it necessarily is God’s truth. You, as an interpreter, are responsible for checking yourself, or better yet, getting someone to check you.
Someone said something to me the other day about the words of a friend of mine being “saturated with doctrine” as if that was a negative thing. I challenge that directly. I think that straying away from having what one says being “saturated with doctrine” strays away from a firm stance in the truth. I hope that everything that I say is saturated, and I expect that if my reading of doctrine is off-base that someone will call me to question on it. Mine is the voracious pursuit of truth, and I will use all the help that I can get on the way to that end.
That is what I worry about in the trends that are surfacing in many modern churches: the idea that somehow doctrine will keep the Church from fulfilling its love portion of its mission. Somehow we’re putting making people feel comfortable over proclaiming the truth. Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on that. Our primary responsibility as saints and ministers of the word is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in spirit and in truth, in season and out of season. We’re not responsible for bringing people into the church building by streamlining or the imposition of “relevance.” God’s word is relevant. Truth is relevant. The danger of the church movements of today is that they seek to couch the truth in a package that won’t turn anyone away. The sad fact is that the truth, the real truth of Jesus Christ will be despised and rejected by men. This is its nature. Though He came offering salvation for all, not all will be saved. By changing the face of the truth to be more universally pleasing we in fact cut at the core of the truth. In our efforts to accept everyone, we try to make everyone acceptable, and this just can’t be so. I’ve been a big Bright Eyes fan for a long time, but I’m sorry, his music has no place being mentioned with positive review in a Christian magazine (Here’s a quote: “There is no truth. There is only you, and what you make the truth” or http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/brighteyes/whenthepresidenttalkstogod.html ). Conor Oberst is pretty open about his rejection of God, and though I would recommend his music to select listeners with discerning ears, for Relevant Magazine to endorse it is pretty frightening to me. I think that that is just one example of the rejection or refusal to hold the world to account of the truth in the name of coolness. “See, we’re a legit, edgy, cutting-edge magazine, and we’re Christian.” In that same magazine there is ten pages where multiple big-name megachurch pastors like Brian McLaren, Erwin McManus, and Rick Warren answer the “7 Big Questions for Christians Today” and in those ten pages, the Bible is not directly referenced even once. I’m sorry, but how do you answer the “Big Questions” of today without the Bible? I usually try to give the Emergent movement a lot of leeway (see my previous posts…I’ve gone to battle for some of these guys before) but in this case, I’m pretty disgusted. I mean, that is intellectually irresponsible. Who gives a shit what these guys’ opinions are? I want to know what God has to say are the answers to those big questions, and it makes me question the validity of their pastoral roles that they would even think to answer them without looking first to the bible. I encourage everyone to get a copy of that Relevant. It is the one with Ben Folds on the cover. You may be able to find the article in an archive on the site, I’ll check.
Anyway, my point is, the fear of doctrine is irrational, and leads to a dangerous take on Christian ministry. It is fine to love people and I think that that is a huge part of what Jesus’ ministry was about: going out of his way to find the people in the gutter and loving them. It absolutely cannot be overlooked, however, that when he found these people, he loved them by holding them to the standards of His truth, and expecting them to “go and sin no more.” My source for this is all four gospels. You should read them, they’re rocking.
Go forth in the way of the Truth. Seek it, and may it always light your path.
-Spencer-
“The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as is needed?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
