Cellphones and Beyond

I recently had a very odd conversation. I think it demonstrates some of the nuanced interplay between ideology and ethics.

The conversation began with some of the female AIA soccer coaches asking Thomas and Stephen Jackson why they did not own cellphones. The first responses were of a very simple and practical nature:

Stehpen: I've found that I don't need it. Why should I buy something that I don't need.
Thomas: Yeah, and why pay monthly when your usage will vary so much.
Jacqueline: Well, you can pay by the minute too...
Thomas: But what about those times when you need to use it alot at once. Then I'll be too cheap to keep people on the line.
Jacqueline: Hey, you're going to need a cellphone for the next few weeks though. That way you won't be so hard to reach.
Thomas: You know, when you're easy to reach, you are forced into social obligations so quickly.

The conversation subsequently got into the questions of social obligations: Does having a cellphone increase, or decrease the quality of your social life? Is the added social networking a blessing or a curse? After all, not having a cellphone makes it necessary for people wanting to contact you, to be far more intentional. The fact of social obligation is a tested one, as I have heard thoughtful people lament about their superficial contacts feeling hurt or neglected because of a missed text or call.

And in my mind, I pondered a few things:

In the past, I have always lived in a tension of introversion and extroversion. On all personality tests (take them or leave them, but they are helpful and comprehensive) I have scored 50/50 on introverted and extroverted tendencies. The tension persists, and it has perhaps even increased over time. What I'm trying to say is that I have long history living in it. I have always prized introspection and solitude. There have been times of my life where I had very few friends, and I lived a life of escapism and withdrawal. At times, I was very lonely, and at times I was more than pleased. During the higher points of my extroversion, I had roaring successes and many friends, and at other times I was bitterly disappointed with both the lack of response of "the crowds" and my conscience wisely admonishing my vanity.

I think it was and is best for me to live a midway between the two. Two sinful tendencies arise according to a false application of the spectrum: toward introversion, pride, melancholy, despair and judgment are commonplace. Toward extroversion, frivolity, intellectual and spiritual stifling, vanity, and unhealthful curiosities are the norm.

It is possible to achieve a balance without the means of a cellphone. I see that in myself, the will to obtain one excites the fleshly Richard who desires to be a busybody and a vain curious boy. I think to myself, "now I won't need to miss anything," and "now I'll be able to catch up with all those random people."

The truth is, missing things can be a good thing. And those random friendships will probably not be worth a whole lot more than a mediocre time at the pub. I submit that meaningful friendships maintained are done so not with overly frequent phone-calls, but through thoughts, spiritual communion, and meaningful and necessary updates.

Ultimately, it is a question of sufficiency. When I say no to facebook and cell phones, it certainly means that it will be quieter, and I will be more bored. It will mean that my curiosity will bug me persistently. But when I am given those three evenings a week where I am left to myself and God, something more noble and excellent happens. God must then become the one who quenches my loneliness. He must then be my sufficiency.

It is a practical way for me to pick up my cross and practice self-denial. I feel my flesh desire its vanities when boredom creeps up on me. Even though I hate it at first, the denials bear fruit. I am constructing myself more into who I want to be. And I hope it is who God wants me to be as well.

There are those of course that use cell phones well. I speak no condemnation for you. I only say that if I were to have a cellphone, my practice of allowing God to be my sufficiency would suffer grievously.

a) At this point I would like to add a few socio-economic reasons for why I have chosen not to have a cell phone. Though text-messaging is not entirely to blame for the degradation of language in our culture (there are many red-handed culprits), it does not encourage thoughtfulness and careful attention to the gift of language (btw, that’s the English Major in me speaking).

b) I don’t even know how much monthly plans cost, $40? $50? Blahg.

c) Did you know that the average teenage/young-adult cell phone user in May 2009 sent 2,272 texts per month on average? Musculoskeletal disorders abound in over-users, causing permanent thumb damage, and early onset arthritis. This statistic is frightening – how can people pay proper and respectful attention during face to face conversations? How can they do their homework well? And how can they pay proper attention to the inner life of the soul when they are merely waiting for their phone to vibrate.

I suppose, practicality and frugality offer some solid reservations for the non-cell phone user.

The dialogue of the evening's conversation turned into a discussion of community and its abilities to fulfil the needs of people. My conclusion was that community cannot be an end in itself. A community only matters insofar as it compels us toward God. Communities lack sufficiency unless they are directed upon the source of it. Therefore, what is more important: the impulse engagements of acquaintances and pals, or the object toward which their relationship to you should derive its purpose and use?

Here's a brief diagram of the conversation:

Thomas being hard to call
Cellphones
Social obligations
Distraction
Community or Creator as sufficiency
Loneliness and its cure

And all this from the question of why Thomas didn't have a cellphone. Clearly the roots ran deeper.

In retrospect Stephen's answer was unbelievably profound: "I've found that I don't need it. Why should I buy something that I don't need."

The reasons why I don't have one, are obviously further than the practical. They unsuspectingly ran to my very orientation toward God and man.

I Love the Church

The criteria required for something to qualify as the "excellent way" of love is vast. There are 17 qualifications in 1 Corinthians 13. I firmly believe, based on observation, that this love is unattainable and can only be imparted by God. Indeed, it is also doctrinally supported (considering that love is a fruit of the spirit, not a law given by a new Moses). "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)

Therefore it was an incredible experience today when I realized that I truly love the church. I wonder what this means for my life hereafter... Any thoughts?

For most of my life I had very little liking for the church at all. It is only in more recent years that I have become interested in, and affectionate towards the church. Love is a fruit of the spirit after all. If there is anything I learned from Don Petker's latest sermon, it is the impossibility of achieving love apart from God. He went through and explained what each of 17 criteria meant. The standards soar way into the heavens, all the way up to the throneroom of God. Incidentally, Jesus said that no one can get there apart from Him. To judge ourselves by the full text of 1 Corinthians 13; to see us match-up in a way that is even close, is about as difficult as following the Law of Moses. But (praise be to God!), I think God has done something in me to enable me to love. Let's take a look:

Love is patient,

I am very patient with the greater church and also my local church. I wait for fads to subside. I wait for heroes and leaders to arise. I do not cop out whenever I feel like it. I let my anger pass, and try to see the best in the present state of affarirs.

Love is kind,

I speak highly of the church. I invest my efforts without expecting much in return. I defend the docrtines of the church. I look for any way I can to help within it.

It does not envy,

I do not envy other denominations that win converts. I do not envy the great big and more successful mega-churches. I do not envy the programs and musicians (though I would like to... something manages to stop me).

It does not boast,

I do not exalt myself above the church or in the church. Rather, I include myself within it, humbling myself where necessary, and praising myself alongside the church when prompted.

It is not proud,

My previous comment applies here as well. In a sense, I am proud of the church. I am proud to be a part of it in many ways. Yet, I am also critical of its faults and heretical movements. I certainly do not use the church as an avenue in any way for gloating. I have purposefully stayed at King Road (a fairly humble church) as opposed to a nicer, newer and larger church in which I could be playing on better worship teams, and could have a larger social network.

It is not rude,

I am extremely reverential toward the church and within the church. I am eminently aware of most sacredities that the church treasures. I make an effort to be a peacemaker within and between churches.

It is not self-seeking,

I have been tempted at times to leave to different churches. Yet I have decided to stay at the one which I am at for a number reasons related to selflessness. I love the church because Jesus loves the church, not because I so much to gain from it. I do anticipate the reward which the church offers of course. On the other hand, I do not see the church as a means to the end of temporal pleasures.

It is not easily angered,

It takes a desperately wicked sin before I even begin to consider the fault of a church. Some doctrinal heresies make me very angry. But on petty matters, I take a very long time to become angry.

It keeps no record of wrongs,

I know quite a bit of church history for a 19-year-old. I do not forget the sins of the church. On the other hand, I am so ready to forgive them, and I find the explanations for why the church fell into their errors more apt to arouse sympathy than judgment.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

This portion has so much conceptual depth, but I can suffice to say that I love orthodoxy. I hate heresies and in the postmodern Christian movements gone awry. I take no delight in the evils of the church, or my own evil dispositions in relating to the church. And I truly do "rejoice." When the church follows the truth, I rejoice in body mind and spirit!

It always protects,

I am an aspiring apologist for the church. I defend the church with my life. There are few things in world I care more about protecting.

Always trusts,

I, more than most expect the church to be acting well all the time. I am shocked when it does not act on its ordained role. I trust that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.

Always hopes,

I always hope the church will improve its moral and theological insights. I always hope that it will grow in its "knowledge and depth of insight." If there is even a hint of Christian doctrine left in a church, I never leave it to burn. I always think that God in Christ willl improve and equip the church.

Always perseveres.

I have not given up on anything church related. I have never had a season in my life where I have ceased going to church because of feelings. I have never ceased striving to improve the church. Relating to perseverance, I have not allowed the other faculties of love to subside over time.

Love never fails.

And love has not failed me. I have never been disappointed because I have loved the church. Conversely, I have been rewarded by the church, and I have been able to help the church. Love has made so many things right, and it has miraculously enabled me to have a wonderful relationship with the body of Christ. "To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen."

The Church Can't Please Everyone

The Church Can’t Please Everyone

Somehow, this axiom is no longer concerning to me. Mind you, it does bother me that people hate the church, and that many (most) have considerable baggage against it, no matter how ridiculous it is. A week scarcely goes by in which my anger is not incited some new ranting anti-religionist. Reading Al Mohler’s blog (www.albertmohler.com) and numerous other articles and books has made me painfully aware of the fact that people in the west have considerable hostility to church – and particularly the evangelical church. It is difficult to express the way it pains me to see people slandering the church, and denouncing the significance of Christ’s body on earth.

But over the years, I have become suspicious of criticisms from outsiders and marginal insiders. They are plagued by internal inconsistencies and wrong-headedness. Below is a list of reasons for my suspicions:

1. Many outsider criticisms are drawn from a grotesque lack of sound history. Many of you may have heard of a man named Andrew Dickinson White. He wrote a book called, "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science” (1874). This book hailed the era of accusations against the church for its supposed crimes in scientific suppression and unreasonableness. It began myths like the notion which states that Christians believed the earth was flat during the middle ages. Or the one which assumes that Copernicus started a scientific revolution (when in fact, several medieval scholastics had done the contextual work for him, and he actually accomplished very little). The myth that the Church was responsible for the Dark Ages was strongly asserted by this book. That surgeons and physicians were suppressed by the Church because of the Christian theology, and that they needed to escape to the fringes of Christendom to do their work, was another myth he fabricated. Not only are the above myths untrue, the very opposite of them is true. The church can almost overwhelmingly be proud of its academic creations, the university and the scientific method, as well as a consistent commitment to scholarly learning. Furthermore, the amount of widely-held beliefs that have come about since A.D. White are numerous, and are more influential than real history. That people use the crusades and the inquisition as a "catch-all counter-apologetic" for discrediting the moral goodness of religion shows that they know almost nothing about Europe at the time. With Dan Brown's novels and movies, and with celebrities like Richard Dawkins, we needn't wonder much...

2. Moral indictments against the church are consistently inconsistent.

Let me talk about a few:

a) The church should be peaceable... but not that peaceable. Blessed are the peacemakers... most of the time. I have heard numerous atheists lambaste the church for its "atrocities" like the crusades, and its violence against the nearby pagan nations. I have heard the outlandish claim that "Christian nations have exercised just as much violence as the Marxists and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century." Yet why is it that the church has also been accused of causing Rome to fall through its softening and pacifying of Roman legions? Why is it that I constantly hear people scoffing at Anabaptists for giving their lives by their pacifism? Why are they even ridiculed for "not protecting their women children," jeopardizing justice and manhood? And of course, Christians can't appreciate violent films, literature and mythology properly because they are effeminate pansies...right?

b) A related indictment against the church is that it is too patriarchal and anti-feminist...but also unsuitable for men. Which will it be? Whenever a church leader utters the word "submission" or when women are denied certain posts in the church, feminists have a hate-hey-day. "Clearly," they say, "the church is unkind to women, and is a male-dominated institution." The truth is quite the opposite. I would highly recommend the book Why Men Hate Going to Church. It discusses the massive gender gap between men and women in the church today. There is something like a 59-41 ratio of presence in favor of women. The programs, atmosphere and mission of churches today truly reflect a feminine spirit - and it is turning away men. You don't have to go far behind the scenes to find far greater multitudes who criticize the church for its effeminacy.The analogy that the author uses works: vanilla cake with a chocolate coating. But let me ask: when was the last time you heard the second criticism of the two? And yet we all hear the first one repeatedly.

c) People in the church are so stupid...but they need to be simple and express things in accessible terms.

d) The church should be active and present in the world...but only as much as we want. We want Christians to give rice, but not too much rice, and only to which people we think they should when they should, with no proselytizing of course...

e) ...Furthermore, the church should mind its own business. Gosh! Can't they just have it between God and them, without bothering any of us?

f) The church should offer the world a substantive religion that merits all manners of fulfillment, but also cannot make any real demands, and cannot employ revalation, or their own scriptures.

g) We think that church should be a moral force for change and for upholding virtue...but it cannot claim that it uniquely teaches virtue, and it cannot claim that it has superior virtue to teach the world, or that the people inside are better than those outside.

h) The church should allow for plenty of "freedom" in matters of conscience. Bu-ut they must have a unified and strong voice in combating liberality, and must strictly watch the holiness of its own members.

i) There should be separation of church and state...but the church MUST support the government, and the pulpit must be a place where ideas can be critically engaged and where people's opinions are formed.

3. Opinions of what the church should be doing conflict immensely

I'm sure that many of you have heard opinions about the activity and passivity of the church. Let's consider some of them:

Many think that the church should be very active in the mission field. Many are supportive of evangelical mission efforts to Africa insofar as they produce better community ethics, better ombudsmanship, and increase support of the destitute. Many others claim that mission efforts sabotage ancient and fading cultures. It increases religious homogenization, or can create terrible tension in places with two dominant religions (ie. Christianity and Islam in Nigeria or Islam and Animism in Sudan). I think that we can disregard a criticism coming from either side (that the church is not vigorous enough in its efforts, or that it should not make mission efforts). Let's do the great commission on Christ's terms.

Many think that Christians should be foursquare against homosexuality. They say that the ambiguity of the Christian community is disingenuous and not confrontational enough. Of course, in most places in North America, the general consensus in that the church should be opening its bosom for gay people, and should be making it a fact of the church. I personally think that we should do scholarly and Christ-centered exegesis of the scripture and act according to revealed ethical standards. And this applies to issues of bio-ethics, feminism, guns, sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

4. The understanding and approval of piety and impiety is awful.

I'm not sure I need to flesh out this thesis much. That's mostly what I said in the previous paragraph. Of course, there is the fact of general revelation, and often human beings have a somewhat accurate moral compass. They can recognize holiness when they see it. That's why we should "make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). But we must not become pre-occupied with issues of being "un-Christian" according to what the world understands. That is because the Holy Spirit enables them to recognize Holiness through His global efforts. Therefore, the same God who through the same Spirit wrote the commands of scripture should be given a hearing. I think that we should play by His rules. Let us do an unmistakable job of learning Christian ethics according to the scriptures. Perhaps people will hate us; we can heed the words of Isaiah: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20). Nonetheless, the surest way to effective Christian living is to follow Christ and to live in the shadow of the cross.

We must grow in grace while we engage God's revelations. It is also of great worth to do a hermeneutic of the culture to find where our faith can converge. That in part, is why I have begun this blog.

Soli Deo Gloria