(330 words).
“The television screen has become the retina of the mind’s eye.” Media theorist Marshall McLuhan alerted us to the fact that the forms of media, more than the actual content delivered through them, is what shapes human activity. The choices that are presented to you on the ballot are largely a construction of what you have seen and heard through media. Political parties are brands and an election campaign is the opportunity for them to promote and sell their brand to you, the democratic consumer.
READ MORE (782 words).
Posted by admin | Filed Under 10, 8
February 8, 2006 | Leave a Comment
Jeremy Hutcheson’s essay on “Bioethics and the new creation” (Issue 5) commendably directs our attention to several pertinent issues regarding man’s use of technology. It is important to act against the abuse of technology, and to counterbalance cultural mindsets when and where they need to be counterbalanced. By speaking of technology in this manner, Hutcheson creates a recurring theme in his article, joining many other twentieth and twentyfirst century authors in treating technology as an entity in itself, that is, as something that exists apart from humanity and that works against it in many instances. What this treatment seems to forget is that technology is really nothing more than tekhn-logi, that is, knowledge or science about an art, skill, craft, method, or system, applied to some purpose. That’s all
technology is: concepts which people choose to apply to a certain end. Obviously, this knowledge affects the limits of what a person can or cannot do. And, of course, if someone falls into patterns or attitudes towards exploring (or exploiting) any or all of those powers that fall within their reach, this can be very detrimental to others. But it’s the person who is responsible for these patterns and attitudes, not the knowledge. This intellectual stance shifts the focus away from the real problem, which lies in human choices, rather than in humanity’s knowledge about the world. This shift has two readily apparent effects, both of which I believe to be detrimental to actually solving the problems pointed out not only by Hutcheson but by the authors he quotes. The first effect of this intellectual stance is the
creation of the specter of technology. This specter allows us to express our ill feelings about the misuses of technology without actually engaging those who are misusing it. We can cite examples of how technology allows sweat shops to operate, how it allows the creation of the atomic bomb, how it makes genetic selection possible, and use these to decry technology, as if it were an entity with moral responsibilities. It makes a nice target that we can hurl accusations at, something that needs to be limited, stopped, turned around, reformed, fixed, rebelled against, and so on. I fear, however, that while all of these may express very significant sentiments that should be hurled at someone, we take the easy road by hurling them at the specter of technology because it can’t fight back. The second effect of this stance
is to take the focus away from where it should be, namely, human responsibility. From our earliest recorded history, humans have used their tools for evil as well as good. The fundamental problem is not the tools; it is our human propensity to use those tools in our ingenious perpetration of evil. Thus, arguments that technology must be limited are meaningless if they are not directed at those who can limit it (and have not done so). Yes, humans are affected and carried away by their ideas. Yes, these ideas and attitudes can be talked about and discussed. But in the end, it is humans who will limit their use of technology (or not, and then there will be no one left to talk about it). It is humans who are autonomous and, to an extent, sovereign, and who need to use this autonomy and sovereignty responsibly to control
their attitudes and actions. It is humans who tend to systematize nature and humanity, and who need to be engaged directly and confronted when they do so. Our task is not to target technology, but rather to engage the human soul. We must direct our efforts towards drawing humanity into an appropriate relationship with God, nature and fellow man, and encourage humanity to set its own limits. In the end, it will be far more effective to engage and work towards that target than to hurl bitter words at shadows in the void.
Perma-Link (650 words).
February 8, 2006 | Leave a Comment
As controversy swirls around the campus, many students and faculty alike are beginning to question. Some have questioned old ways of doing things, old patterns, and old habits in need of change. Others have questioned the authority, the laws, the traditions, and the even the questioners. As Christians, questioning can seem foreign to us. By the time we Christians are eight years old we’ve pretty much got life figured out. We know all the steps, all the rules and all the hoops to jump through. Although we mostly fail at putting these ideals into practice, we accept that that’s part of the process and continue in our journey towards perfection. The whole thing is actually quite simple: love God, love your neighbour, and help out a poor person from time to time. No need to question. Obedience has got to be right up there with cleanliness and godliness, right? Perhaps this really is the most beautiful thing about our faith: it gives us answers. It gives our lives meaning and purpose. We know that we are living for something and for someone. We don’t often have to worry about the nihilism and meaninglessness that plagues society and the pop culture around us. Life is valuable and sacred. God loves us– there’s nothing more beautiful than this. However, a man much smarter and more poetic than myself once said, “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” Christianity is about the search rather than the discovery of truth. Christ spoke in parables that even he said his closest followers would be unable to understand. He didn’t give us the key to life in five simple steps. We have to figure that stuff out on our own. As Christian university students, wholly devoted to our education and personal growth, we cannot allow our healthy curiosity to waver. We must always be wondering, thinking, and questioning. We have a lot to learn from this great institution, but the university can also learn from us. Questions and criticism are not a form of attack. They usually aren’t meant to hurt or to destroy. The greatest of all questioners, Socrates, when finally tried and arrested for his crimes against society, submitted himself to the laws of the state. He was not after his beloved city’s demise, but rather its improvement. And it is in the same way that we as students must approach our administration. We must remember that this is not a battle between two sides. This is not an attempt to destroy something that has served us all incredibly well; but rather, as iron sharpens iron, let us work together with the administration and ask the questions that will lead to the improvement of our beloved institution. Each of us has chosen to come to Trinity freely and we are all grateful for the opportunity. However, this university also belongs, in part, to all of us. As we take ownership of this place, let us question the things that need to change to see a better place for all.
Perma-Link (510 words).
February 8, 2006 | 2 Comments
Mr. Senft believes that the humanities (in particular, the discipline of philosophy) have no substantive place in a Christian university. The purpose of a university, in his view, is to support the most popular and most practical programs (business, education, etc.). Additionally, this purpose is most consistent with our Christian mission, to send out professionals (not academics) into the marketplace. All of these assumptions reveal that the author has no understanding of what a university is supposed to do for its students. A liberal arts education, which is the very core of our university’s identity, requires that our students give themselves to the contemplation of the great questions. What is humanity? What is the good life? What is the meaning of their existence? This sacrifice, which a study of the Great Books
of the West (and beyond) both requires and articulates, is meant to enrich the very souls of our students, to take them (and their professors) beyond their parochial context to have a conversation with the thinkers of all ages. Presumably, the author assumes, as a practical fellow, that the only thing students want from a university is to help them adapt to the popular and practical concerns of their own time, not to help them understand the concerns of all time. How does he know that all of our students are so parochially minded? The most shocking assumption of the author is that a Christian university must focus on the professional programs, to satisfy the imperative of evangelism. The author assumes that the graduates of these programs require only “practical skills” to spread the gospel of Christ. Presumably, the need to reflect on the nature of the soul, good and evil, and social injustice (all concerns of the humanities) is not “practical” and is not consistent with our university’s mission. Yet the author should recognize that an education in skills alone is no education: skills on their own may foster a sense of efficiency, but do little to cultivate a thoughtful and critical mind. Was Christ simply teaching about “skills,” or demanding that his people thoughtfully critique the idols of their time? By all means Christians should “infiltrate” the professional fields, as the author suggests, but a true Christian professional must think. The Enrons of our time are full of “professionals” who are practically minded and unreflective at the same time. I agree with the author that the humanities will never be popular, nor should its practitioners seek to have this quality. The humanities, especially when informed by the biblical tradition, will always question the credos of any age. As long as TWU supports this mission, it is a university, not a technical college.
Perma-Link (447 words).
February 8, 2006 | Leave a Comment
Materialism, exploitive commercialism, and manipulation of the consumer mind are all very powerful and negative concepts. We as modern Christians live in a world in which such concepts and words are commonplace, yet at the same time spiritually disturbing. How is a Christian to operate in a world increasingly fraught with such things? No, I’m not talking about the capitalist marketplace, but rather, the Christian subculture that mirrors it. We Christians like to associate all sorts of evils with the world and with the faceless people who we say are “of it and in it,” but how often does one hear a critical reflection on our own Christian culture? Perhaps it’s just me, but I have very rarely heard anything, much less a sermon, on the topic. From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense to find a niche market and exploit it: being the first into a new market is extremely lucrative, especially if it is as big as an entire religion. However, is that behavior something we can truly call appropriate? Is taking advantage of the Christian demographic a good thing? Or even more controversial, is profiting from the message of Jesus moral? Many modern North American Christians have unquestionably accepted the capitalistic way of life, and in doing so have totally lost the concept of holiness. There is nothing for contemporary Christians that can’t be bought or sold. It seems that nothing, not even God Himself, is so special as to be beyond the grasp of Adam Smith’s almighty invisible hand. How holy can we truly consider the image, words, and life of Jesus when we use Him as a marketing gimmick? Granted, marketing is always easy
to make fun of, but how moral can Christian marketing be? The amazing thing about Christ’s teachings is that they are intensely selfless and sacrificial. Numerous times Jesus condemns those who value earthly gains over spiritual ones. Wealth is often condemned as spiritually dangerous and charity is praised as virtuous. Those teachings of Christianity are difficult (perhaps impossible?) to reconcile with a greed-based economic system like capitalism. That doesn’t mean that making a profit is wrong, though. Selling Bibles, for example, is something that is morally defensible. In an economy like ours there are costs to print, costs to distribute, and costs for administration. By charging money for Bibles the companies that produce them are able to continue to do so. Where a company could go wrong, though, is by buying into the capitalistic mantra of “Bigger! Better! More!” Rather than simply providing a useful service to the Christian community by furnishing necessary goods, some companies become greedy, milking the community for all it’s worth. What purpose does a Biblezine, such as Revolve, really serve other than to extract cash, encourage consumption, and in doing so, foster materialism? No, Christianity should never become the target audience or a market niche. We Christians need to learn to be in the world but not of the world. We should no longer conform to the economic patterns of this world, but transform the world in reaffirming our faith as too holy to buy and sell.
