Tim's shared items
The annals of history are filled with people who have done great things (inventions, writings, art, building, etc.) at great cost to their personal and family life.
So it was not a surprise when I read Steve Jobs’ biographer Walter Isaacson say the following:
“I wanted my kids to know me,” Mr Isaacson recalled Mr Jobs saying, in a posthumous tribute the biographer wrote for Time magazine. “I wasn’t always there for them, and I wanted them to know why and to understand what I did.”
I was really struck by that statement “I wanted my kids to know me.”
You and I may never invent something like the iPhone, but everyday we are given the choice to pursue opportunities that pull us farther away from our kids and spouse…family — or to say no to opportunities that pull us away from them. And instead make decisions that enrich our families and the lives of our kids.
I wrote this post not as a moral indictment on what choices we make in regards to how we choose to live our family lives…but more so that we understand there is often great cost to our families when we pursue certain endeavors.
Often these choices get even more murky coming in the form of ministry as well. It’s not hard to find historical records and stories of great men and women of God who have left a huge mark on Christianity with their writings and ministries, but who have left a wake of destruction in their personal and family lives.
For example, I remember hearing in my Church history class of the bad marriage and family life of the famous cleric and theologian John Wesley. We can thank him for the legacy he has left, but there was a personal and family cost to getting there.
Are you willing to sacrifice your personal and family life for your pursuits?
People can still pursue opportunities of great cost, and follow God at great cost…without destroying their families in the process. Perhaps we need to pay attention to, and become better at discerning which opportunities allow us to continue to foster our marriages and families in the process, and which ones could be lethal to them.
When the iPad was first introduced, I read every review of it I could find, but one of them has stuck with me more than the others. The reviewer likened the iPad to a new puppy, something that filled your life with love and joy, but also annoyed you as it chewed up your favorite slippers, shredded your pillow, and peed all over your new carpet. The reviewer was anxious for the iPad to transition into that good old dog who sat by your side, provided unwavering companionship, and behaved the way you wanted it to.
What I loved most about that review was how it perfectly captured one of my favorite concepts from media and technology studies: domestication. Metaphorically speaking, new technologies are similar to untrained puppies; they create chaos and upheaval in their owners’ lives when first introduced, but their owners typically respond by domesticating them: reshaping their behaviors, and sometimes even their physical attributes (e.g. neutering), so that they better fit the existing social order. A house with a dog is never the same as a house without one, but a well-domesticated dog bends as much to its owners as its owners bend to it.
Domestication theory, like it sounds, posits that technological adoption is an active process where designers, producers, marketers, and consumers struggle to work out what a new device or system actually is, and what it is good for. As opposed to the more traditional view where technologies enter the consumer space and are assumed to have one-way “impacts” on culture, domestication researchers stress the ways in which people wrestle with and often reshape technologies as they fit them into their everyday lives.
For example, consider the introduction of a television into a household. I’m just old enough that I remember the first time my parents brought home a large (maybe 15″) color television. Before that, we had a very small black-and-white television that we sometimes watched, but this new color set was the first real TV we ever had. Although the artifact itself carried with it some suggestions for how it should be used, it did not completely determine how we fit it into our lives. It had the look of a piece of furniture, so it could have fit well into our main living area, but my parents were the sort that wanted to relegate the TV to a separate, designated room. This placement sent the message to us boys that watching TV was something out of the ordinary, something to be done occasionally and purposefully.
My parents also carefully regulated what we watched on that television, and when we watched it. My brother and I desperately loved The Six Million Dollar Man, but we also quickly learned that we had to remain on our best behavior to watch it, as it aired just after our normal bed time. Sadly, we missed many of the episodes due to our inability to resist fighting with one another, so I never did find out what happend when Steve Austin met the Sasquatch. Watching TV on a sunny day was also verboten; my mother was particular in her desire that we go outside and play whenever we had the chance to do so. Perhaps she just wanted to watch her own shows in peace….
Like all good parents, mine were also concerned about regulating the way in which we watched television: sitting too close to the set would reap condemnations and warnings that we’d soon go blind, which I’m guessing was a popular urban myth at the time. Sitting upside down on the couch, which seemed perfectly fun to us, was also never tolerated. If we were going to watch TV, we need to watch it, not play around. All of this communicated that watching TV was serious business, and not something you did aimlessly while you played with other things.
My point is that while the physical artifact and the programming streamed through it suggested or even encouraged particular patterns of use, they did not entirely determine how that device was incorporated into my family’s home. My parents domesticated that television: our house was never the same after it was introduced, but the physical placement of the device, and the way in which our use of it was regulated, reshaped our understanding of what it was, and what it was good for.
So where was the TV in your childhood house, and what rules did your parents establish (or not establish) regarding its use? How are you actively domesticating new technologies that are entering your life today? Are your domestication efforts proving successful, or are your new devices metaphorically chewing your coffee table legs to bits?
To the Board and President of Tyndale University
I write this letter as a former student of Tyndale University College and Seminary, one who completed two full years at your institution, started the the student magazine on campus and has been sponsored by Tyndale multiple times to run events and bring in keynote speakers from around the world. I had heard a rumour a week or so ago that Tyndale was bringing George W. Bush in to promote Tyndale and I thought it was a joke. However, the rumour was proven true today by a few Toronto Star articles and a letter from Gary Nelson. Not only was it proven true, it was announced only a week before the proposed date of the actual event that is happening on Sept 20, 2011. I can’t help but view this as intentionally secretive as nothing was mentioned anywhere by Tyndale until we started bombarding Facebook walls with questions and links to what we were finding out.
I’ve been running events now for a number of years and if there is one temptation that keeps coming back over and over again it is to invite speakers based on ticket sales and revenue rather than content or character. It’s a tough balancing act. Unfortunately for Tyndale, they have failed at bringing any balance to this through the decision to bring in one of the most controversial so-called evangelical leaders of the century. As David Fitch puts it in The End of Evagelicalism, “I suspect that many American Christians under the age of thirty-five refuse to be called evangelical because of the presidency of George W. Bush.” Gary Nelson seems to think that “Tyndale represents a more thinking kind of evangelicalism.” Gary Nelson obviously has no clue what Tyndale represents or he is set out to completely destroy the reputation that Tyndale has now. Gary Nelson has also cemented the fact that he does not represent the growing amount of those under the age of thirty five who want nothing to do with the “Christian” rhetoric of a man like George Bush.
I’ve now been deleted four different times across two different Facebook pages with the post of “anybody talking about george bush coming to promote Tyndale at a breakfast on sept 20? is there a reason why it’s been so silent among the students? if anyone is interested in speaking more about this and possibly working with us to voice our disgust with such a publicity stunt/money grab, shoot me an e-mail. (nathancolquhoun@gmail.com).” Gary Nelson states that they “are a university that tries to present all sides and be open to different opinions,” and “as a university, it’s {Bush} someone we need to listen to just like other points of view.” Meanwhile his staff are deleting opposing comments from Tyndale’s Facebook walls and rather posting announcement letters that are written by him. I’ve also been contacted by others who have had their comments deleted because of their questioning or opposing stance against Bush while leaving immature comments for everyone to see like this one by a man named Brian that says “Hey don’t go then, you immature know it alls!! You are so wise you would have voted for Obama!” Since when was being open to all sides picking and choosing what Facebook comments you feel like the rest of the world needs to read?
This is a shameful money grab and publicity stunt for Tyndale. Whether or not they came up with the idea or funded it themselves they are most certainly excited about “elevating the school’s profile” and benefiting from the event as much as possible. There is no reason to give George W Bush any sort of voice when it comes to Christian Higher Education. If this was really about addressing Christian Higher Education, James KA Smith just wrote an excellent book that addresses Christian Higher Education beautifully, ask him to speak. But we all know it’s not about that. This is about two things. 1. Raising Money. 2. Raising the School’s Profile (whatever that means). Using Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to do either is wrong. A Christian school that cares more about “elevating their profile” than about forming Christians is a school I can do without, as that flies completely in the face of the Christian values that I have come to understand should characterize the church.
I don’t need to dig too deep to expose the kind of policies the Bush is affiliated with. He’s been accused of plenty of war crimes, he has been threatened to be arrested if he shows up into certain countries, he thought that God told him to invade Iraq and he approved and gave orders for torture. He doesn’t have a great track record. Bush seems to represent and promote systemic dysfunction at its finest. This is not the kind of man that should be promoting a school that is supposed to be identified with peace, love, grace, forgiveness, suffering for good and loving the poor.
As a response to our disappointment and disgust with Tyndale’s decision to partner with such a man to help Tyndale become more successful in our world, we have started a website to oppose this event.
On the website you will find my letter along with others like mine, articles posted, and a petition full of names of those who oppose this decision. You will also find announcements about the protests that we plan on staging along with updates on where to meet and what we will be doing. We hope that you will change your mind and pull back on this event entirely and refuse to allow Tyndale to stoop to a level of marketing (because that is all that this is) that is abhorring. We hope for an apology from Gary Nelson and an admission that he and the Board made a mistake by moving the school in this direction.
The quote below from Stanley Hauerwas will help explain exactly what I think is going on here. Tyndale is doing nothing more than trying to be seen as a high profile learning centre for Christian studies and they don’t care what they have to give up in the process.
“It is clear that those who support Christian universities would be quite upset if the qualifier came to mean that the education students received might put them at a disadvantage for being a success in America.”
- Stanley Hauerwas
I write this letter from the position of not caring if Tyndale has a raised profile, creates successful students who get jobs or can attract a leader of international popularity. None of this matters. The kind of education that Tyndale should be providing for their students is one that would form students who are disciplined in the ways of Christ and his church, and refuse to allow fame and wealth to seep into their decisions.
There is still time Tyndale. Please cancel the event. Walk away. You don’t have to do this. It’s really not worth it.
Related posts:
- Grace to Change My Mind
- Open Source, Mac Culture and Change-Agents
- An Open Letter/Review to the Sarnia Revival
Thanks to Semi at Muzicosphere for posting this great TEDx presentation from Line 6 co-founder Marcus Ryle, which aside from being a history of the guitar is really a chance for him to showcase the latest Line 6 modelling technology.
Marcus Ryle is the co-founder and senior vice-president, New Business Development, for Line 6, a music products company dedicated to integrating technology with music products to develop innovative solutions for musicians. Marcus has been developing musical instrument and audio technology for over 30 years, and is co-inventor of 17 US patents. He is also a former studio musician, having recorded with artists such as Chicago, Chaka Khan, Christopher Cross, and Barbra Streisand. Marcus will be exploring the energy of music and sound.
About TEDx
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized. (Subject to certain rules and regulations.)
Theologian David Fitch has a good post on the debate about Rob Bell’s new book
I blame Rob Bell for this inflammatory mess (along with his publisher) because of the excessive bating and provoking all in an obvious attempt to attract attention to his book. This is no way to pastor I say. This is no way to lead. (but it does sell books). On the other hand, to be even handed, I blame people on the Neo-Reformed side as well, people like Kevin DeYoung. Sorry Kevin, I know you mean well but when you do a 20 page review that largely argues out of an incredibly narrow view of orthodoxy with little to no appreciation for history before the 1920′s, it comes off as defensive and parochial. For both sides, the tactics reveal a lack of a place to engage this issue productively for the furtherance of the Kingdom beyond our own personal enclaves (or ambitions). And yet discussing this issue is essential in order to be shaped for a posture for Mission that has been lacking amongst the traditional evangelicals, the church I am part of and remain committed to.
I have been kind of intrigued by the entire debate… not so much that I will read the book or any of the debate but the nature of the debate in itself. Let me explain. Theological debates never used to be like this. They were much more private events, often done through letters, in person, or in small circulation academic journals. Book sales were small. I am going out on a limb and say that Rob Bell will probably outsell Barth’s Commentary on Romans in a couple of months. What used to be a private and contemplative debate has been sped up tremendously through blogs, Twitter, and competing book deals and the resulting conference speaking gigs. All of this is driven by Christian publishing companies that are either shareholder held or are owned by News Corp, famous for taking sides and then profiting from the division.
There is always going to be different ideas in the church. I have some reservations with Brian McLaren’s theology that we have talked privately over (not sure who is right on that… been thinking about it for ten years) and even with David Fitch, I still am trying to figure out his theology of social justice and how to work on it in my context. Hopefully in the next decade I can put to words my issues with it but it needs some more thinking about but my theological reservations don’t need to be tweeted, blurted, and raced out. At the same time, I need to present my ideas in the expectation that some of them are going to be offensive to others. I am a Methodist. I am quite confident that my theology is correct but some of my beliefs stand in contrast to my own denomination even let alone others yet I don’t feel the need to refute and inflame others all of the time. I have my questions about Brian McLaren’s theology, David Fitch’s social gospel and CFL allegiances (I think but check back in 2018), Darryl Dash’s theological worldview (he’s Baptist, same could be said for Santosh Ninan and Kyle Martin), Len Hjalmarson (Anabaptist), Randall Friesen (moved to Alberta and cheered for Brett Favre), or anyone that I know that doesn’t subscribe to a liberal Free Methodist worldview that I do yet i think we have managed to have better discussions than what we saw over this latest dust up. We are always going to have things that divide us (the Hamilton Tiger Cats? Really?!) but can’t we have these discussions without cutting each other off and using the terms heretic. Good grief, Tillich and Barth continued on their correspondence despite seeing the world in very different ways (with evidence that Tillich and a pantheist.
I wonder when we are going to realize that speed isn’t always vital or even desirable in theological debates. The rush to be first or provocative may appease your masters at News Corp, Google, and Amazon but is it adding anything to the church. I don’t think it is. I think what we gained in speed was lost in perspective, contemplation, and depth of dialogue.
However, as we wait, he's written a fascinating blog post about his view on the music industry, now that he's out of a major record label and seeing what else is there. The whole thing is so worth reading, I'm having trouble picking a part to excerpt, so here's a tidbit, but you really should read the whole thing:
A lot of the sentiment I've been living under for the past few years has been based on fear. Things slipping through fingers never to be returned. What I found leaving however is that while things slipped through fingers, they didn't fall to the ground. A whole other ecosystem of hands was there to catch it.As I said, there's a lot more in the post, including why he's optimistic and excited about the new ecosystem that's evolving. While we sometimes (if you count the comments, quite frequently) have "music industry" insiders stop by to tell us that we're crazy for saying the music industry is thriving and there's more opportunity than ever before, it's always nice to see someone who's deeply involved on the inside making the same point. I have no idea what Ethan will be doing next, but I'm sure it will be worth paying attention to.
The music business didn't die. And it isn't dying. I argue that the human race will have to die before an industry around music fully succumbs. It is changing. Shrinking, contracting and expanding. It is also diversifying and competing for attention and dollars with ecosystems and markets that weren't even imaginable five years ago. Where one dollar might have gone toward a record before, it is now split between entertainment bills, ad-hoc entertainment, subscriptions and the increased cost of providing us the unencumbered connectivity and freedom brought by devices like iPhones.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
After writing this, I made the same argument in a different format for Christianity Today, entitled Not Many of You Should Presume to Be Bloggers: How Social Media Changed Theological Debate. The commenters seemed to agree with the post by attempting to enact its main point.
Same Story, Different Teams
This weekend, we had our first family trip to the emergency room for my two-year-old which meant that I missed out on the fireworks in the Christian interwebs over Rob Bell. If you didn’t catch it either, Sarah Pulliam Bailey at CT did a great roundup and here’s the summary: (1) Rob Bell released a trailer and provocative synopsis for his new book on Heaven and Hell, (2) Justin Taylor, Denny Burk, and others wrote that it outed Bell as Universalist (but later backed off on more negative language), (3) Christians took sides and went nuts on everything with a “Publish” or “Post” button.
Most of us have probably forgotten by now, but a nearly identical set of events happened about 18 months ago to John Piper – the only difference was the teams were swapped. Piper said something vague and controversial, famous people who already don’t like his stuff denounced it, and then lots of emergent and neo-reformed types signed up for Twitter accounts.
As is my custom, I’d like to sidestep the actual theological issues at play and ask: How and why does this keep happening?
The Medium is the Message
Now I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Justin Taylor in person, and I have to say he’s one of the nicest guys you could ever meet. However, I know Rob Bell about as well as I know Brad Pitt which means two things: I don’t know anything about his heart, and I’ve seen him on TV enough to know he’s very gifted in the area of rhetoric and creating vivid images.
Because he understands and teaches the art of using speech and images to move people into action, it’s hard not to think that he didn’t see any of this coming.
Of course, whether or not he actually planned what happened we cannot (and should not) say, but it takes only a moment to see that it had all the elements of a perfect storm. Everything was left unanswered: the trailer is a series of questions, the synopsis is designed to pique interest, the bloggers were only sent selected chapters, and so on.
By never directly stating what he really thinks and releasing just enough to get everyone excited, Bell and Harper Collins hit a home run. Bloggers just couldn’t resist being the first to weigh in, and everyone else couldn’t help but weigh in on their weigh ins.
In terms of publicity, it doesn’t really matter what Bell actually thinks. The longer he stays silent, the more traffic the blogs and tweets generate, and the higher Bell’s sales go.
The result? Love Wins wins.
If Bell does, in fact, espouse Universalism he can say, “Wouldn’t you rather side with me – the nice guy?” And if he ends up clarifying himself and denying full-fledged Universalism, he can still say, “See, not jumping to conclusions is part of how Love Wins.” (Remember, however, that when Piper clarified his statements, his frenemies didn’t care – the blood was already in the water).
A brilliant and successful publicity effort.
But a sad and predictable fallout.
The Law of Christian Media
Back when the tornado hit, I mentioned an interesting piece of Internet lore called Godwin’s Law which states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
And back when I used to run a Christian message board, I liked to say that the Christian version was,
As a Christian online discussion grows longer, the probability of calling someone a heretic or false teacher approaches 1.
Now be careful you don’t misunderstand this. It isn’t meant to downplay the fact that some people do in fact espouse heretical views (while it’s not en vogue today, the Scripture say are to reject not only false teaching, but also false teachers – yikes!). These “laws” aren’t statements about the truth, they are simply observations about the nature of online debate.
In the old days of the Internet, message board discussion threads would go on for (p)ages, no would budge, and eventually someone got angry enough to play the Nazi/heresy card.
But in the social media world, it works in reverse. The key metric is no longer the length of time people spend discussing something, but the amount of time between a current event and when someone pushes a “publish” button about it. The result is that something like this is true:
As time for reflection grows shorter, the probability of a conflict between truth and love approaches 1.
Speedy Responses Are Like Gas on a Fire
Of course, there is certainly a place for posting things in a timely manner even if they are controversial. For example, Justin Taylor posted an obituary of controversial theologian Clark Pinnock a few days after his death that included a sober assessment of Pinnock’s views and impact. It was important, necessary, and accurate.
They key difference was that when Pinnock died, everything about his life and thought was known. However, when current events are still unfolding – unrest in Egypt, Michael Jackson’s death, a half published book, etc. – the opportunity for misinformation or accusations of misinformation is huge.
With Love Wins, this is exactly what happened. It certainly appears that Bell wants you to think that traditional non-universalist views are problematic, but until those final chapters are out there and Bell makes a definitive statement, we’re left to speculation.
For now, if anyone says something negative about Bell’s ideas, it’s subject to the “You’re not loving” defense. If, on the other hand, you defend his views you get slapped with the, “You’re not on the side of truth” attack.
But who can wait until the book comes out? Who can keep silent on such a juicy, explosive topic?
In the end, technologically driven priorities like speed and distraction win, while Christian virtues like truth and love lose.
The Most Dangerous Button on Your Computer
In today’s world, when something important happens there is no searching for a notepad, no finding a pen that works, no saying, “Aw shucks, the mailman already came today. I guess I’ll have to sleep on it.” Instead, we are surrounded by dozens of shiny buttons enticing us to “publish,” “post,” “comment,” and “send.”
Facebook asks us:
And Twitter says,
but James warned us that we should be,
“Quick to listen and slow to speak” (James 1:19).
This is especially true when there’s nothing definitive only intentional provocation to listen to. In that case, the words of Admiral Ackbar are are quite apt.
Addendum: Remember, I’m not pointing the finger at the best selling authors, major bloggers, or public theologians (their responsibility, I think, is different). This is about you and me, the little guys who in under 5 minutes can create a blog and say whatever we want. In 30 days or so, we’ll all know what Bell thinks. In the mean time, will we answer the constantly beckoning call of Facebook and Twitter, joining the storm of controversy and distraction, or will we display the fruits of the Spirit like patience and self control? More importantly, when the next storm comes into town, will we stay inside until it blows over or go outside and play in the wind?
So I was interested a few weeks ago when Michael Weinberg, a lawyer at Public Knowledge, put up a discussion about whether or not there was an IP violation in doing 3D printings of Catan pieces. He explained why there actually was no actual violations there. In reading that, I realized that most of the same arguments would apply to software as well... and like magic, someone popped up in the comments to that post, noting that he had written an Android clone of Catan, and their lawyers had forced it down. Weinberg has now written a detailed explanation of why the lawyers for Catan are flat-out wrong and are abusing intellectual property law to stifle competition.
You should read the whole thing, but the key points are that only parts of the game are covered by copyright: the graphics, for example. But if you're using different graphics, you should be fine. The Android app was using different graphics. Board game rules are also not copyrightable, as they're like a recipe. Catan's lawyers claim that their rules are covered by copyright because the rules "create a protectable fable." Weinberg points out that this is "simply ridiculous." He walks through the fable, and breaks it down piece by piece to show how it's not copyrightable at all.
Although this assertion is highly questionable as a general principle, in this case it is simply ridiculous. As far as I can tell the "fable" in question is this:Then there's the trademark claim. Clearly, "Settlers of Catan" is covered by trademark, so if you were offering a product by the same name, that's in violation. But the Android app was called "Island Settlers" which is not infringing. Catan's lawyers claimed that because the developer mentions Catan, that makes it trademark infringement, but that's ludicrous. If you are accurately describing that a game is "like" Catan, there's no trademark infringement. In fact, you're specifically showing that there's no likelihood of confusion, because you're admitting that the games are not from the same source. As Weinberg notes, it's perfectly legal, if you're selling replacement parts for a Toyota Camry to mention that they work for a Camry, and thus it's perfectly legal to say you've made a game like Catan, or which matches with Catan, and not violate the trademark.Players are recent immigrants to the newly populated island of Catan. Expand your colony through the building of settlements, roads, and villages by harvesting commodities from the land around you. Trade sheep, lumber, bricks and grain for a settlement, bricks and wood for a road, or try to complete other combinations for more advanced buildings, services and specials.Everything beyond the first sentence simply describes the gameplay. The first sentence "Players are recent immigrants to the newly populated island of Catan" is far from a wildly original piece of storytelling, and may not be able to be protected by copyright at all. Even if you could protect that one sentence with copyright, if that sentence allows Catan to protect its game then "Nations are at war, fighting to control the globe" would protect Go, Chess, Checkers, Risk, Connect Four, and just about any board game in the world. Maybe even Catan. There is very little by way of original work to protect in that "fable," and certainly nothing to extend to the rules of Settlers of Catan. I am willing to bet that very few lawyers would be willing to make Catan's assertion in front of a judge.
Unfortunately, the lawyers toss out all sorts of otherwise incorrect information and claims about intellectual property law, and the developer admits that, even if they're wrong, he feels he has no choice but to give up, because he can't afford to fight any sort of lawsuit, no matter how bogus it might be.
As Weinberg points out, this is the worst kind of legal bullying:
The email exchange between Catan and Neil is the worst kind of ignorant (let's assume it was ignorance) legal bullying. It is full of patently incorrect or misleading statements of US law, punctuated by threats to pull the developer into court if he fails to submit. It is a shameful example of a company trying to control what the law does not allow it to control by relying on fear and an inability to afford to go to court.Tragically, this how much of the law works today.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
