hattip: Douglas Karr
In Rediscovering Sabbath Rest, Mark Early brings further attention to the “Secular Sabbath” that seems to be gaining steam in the secular world.
As I mentioned in What? Me, Unplug?, I know I should try this myself. I’m always plugged in, even on Sunday.
I remember years ago hearing about how even non-devout Christian families would do all their chores on Saturday, even food preparation, so that Sunday would be wholly devoted to God. I freely acknowledge that I discredited their ideals at the time. I am not so quick to do so now.
A great blog post by brought these three articles to my attention:
- Less Television and Computer Gaming May Keep Children Slimmer. Granted, this is kind of a “duh,” however, the reason may not be what you think.
- An Email Free Day
- I Need a Virtual Break, No, Really.
What I find interesting in the last article is the term “secular sabbath”. Despite being, from my point of view, a contradiction in terms, the concept is valid. In fact, I am pondering avoiding my computer all Sunday. I might even avoid television and gaming (okay, granted I don’t do much gaming).
This somewhat flies in the face of popular “wisdom” that the up-and-coming generation is “wired” for multi-tasking. Just something else to ponder.
hattip to:The Point
In Telephones and What is Good for Us, Randy Cooper writes about the Amish. My big takeaway was this:
It took all summer for them to decide whether they would have phones. They finally decided against it. And they had two reasons. First, they knew that if they began to use telephones, they would carry out conversations less and less in a face to face manner. Second, if they had telephones, they feared that their children would begin talking more and more exclusively to one another. The decision about telephones was made in light of what was good for the community and for the human word.
As much as I love computers, the Internet, and technology as a whole (although, I’m still not all that fond of phones), I strongly empathize with the Amish here. We strive to create social connections on the Internet, because we seem to have forgotten the ones in our immediate vicinity.
Back in August, I wrote about light pollution. I can even still remember the night sky that caused me to write it.
Yesterday, a blog post appeared on the Clampham Institute website discussing the detrimental links between artificial light and cancer (hattip to: The Point). Apparently, in the same article in the New Yorker that generated the Wired.com story (which is what caused me to post in August), David Owens (the author of the New Yorker article) references this potential link between artificial light and cancer.
If artificial light is adding to cancer, what else does it do?
It is SO much MORE! Michael Wesch of Kansas State University created a little video, Information R/evolution, that is spreading through out the web. The phrase “information superhighway” should be tossed out, for as Mr. Wesch points out, the information is not, and must not be, so constrained.
hattip to: Duncan Riley @ TechCrunch/span>
Plus, there is an article at The Times (UK) that talks about Google
Brian E. Volck, in his post Are You Being Served?, states:
As John Sayles’ role in the movie Matewan suggests, big businesses have used clergy as cheerleaders before, but this news item from The Economist hints at something worse.
The article: Praying for Gain: A fad for piety infiltrates the realm of Mammon
I am completely at a loss for what this, “something worse”, that Mr. Volck refers to is. Is he worried that there are two companies that provide chaplain services? Is that his issue? If it is, then perhaps he is unaware of the restrictions that these to companies put upon those whose services they tender. These chaplains are to stay away from denominational arguments (whether for or against), and to provide purely for the spiritual needs of the employees. Is he worried that a company dares to make a profit on provide such services? Where is that particular line drawn?
Is he worried about the reason companies are doing this? Such as, increased worker productivity? Does that mean my company can no longer provide donuts every other Friday? Or company parties? There is nothing wrong with that.
The one thing that may concern him is the equating of the corporate chaplain to the village priest, which, frankly, was probably an ignorant and definitely stupid thing for the writer at the Economist to write. I would hazard a guess that the writer was trying to relate it to earlier times in history, but who has no real experience with a village priest.
The author does state (although I’m not sure the statement is an accurate reflection of reality) that these chaplains are providing spiritual support for people who are feeling cut off from their roots (if they had any). However, the “boom” according to the article has been since 9/11. That should give all people pause. 9/11 caused a lot of people to reflect on their lives. Most denominations saw a huge influx of attenders immediately after 9/11, but those numbers quickly fell. However, even in those churches who are otherwise experiencing negative growth, the post-9/11 increase in attendees has been noticeable.
Another thing that Mr. Volck could be concerned with is the possibility that people will equate their faith with the company, therefore become religiously zealous about their company. While, I suppose, that could be an issue, I suspect that it is not, especially when the chaplain is not a true employee of the company.
Perhaps the scary part for Mr. Volck is that is is corporations that recognize the value of religion and supporting it, while society and government as a whole (think the bureaucrats, not the politicians) has become somewhat hostile to religion.
I don’t know Mr. Volck, and I’m throwing all this out there because he didn’t make his concerns known. I hope that he will note his concerns at some point, but I can’t help but feel that his concern is the seeming melding of faith with “evil” corporations. However, if the chaplain is a true Christian, and serves the employees in true Christian love, I suspect that the Enrons and other horrible shenanigans will be greatly reduced, and the companies will cease being emotionless, profit-only, organizations, as a whole.
Perhaps I’m being optimistic, but I’m allowed to be every once in a while, just to get out of the rut.
There is a great piece written by John Koesler, Eat, Drink, and Be Hungry, on ChristianityToday.com. Sometimes I wonder if the Beatitudes really say what we think they mean, regardless of that underlying current of though in my own mind, I think this is a wonderful way of looking at the Beatitudes, life in general, and, to me, at the Eucharist.
One thing that did strike me, is this is going back to the holes we try to fill in our lives with things other than God. This of course brings me to my pet topic (“meme”) of Technological Enervation. Perhaps Technological Enervation is just another way of pointing to the same issue.
William Gibson, if you are not aware, invented the term cyberspace, and frankly, much of the perceived culture that accompanies it. He foresaw much of what we have today, but he now feels that the future is in such flux that it cannot be predicted. He recently did an interview with silicon.com that is, to me, a must read.
What I find interesting in this is an underlying feeling of Technological Enervation. I know I’m not the only one that feels this, but I thought it would be those of a more spiritual nature. However, here is someone who is more of the technological bent (although, could be reasonably argued, philosophical as well) feeling the same way.
In Are Computers Causing us to “Cocoon” Ourselves?, WXPNews editor Deb Shinder questions as to whether we are really cocooning ourselves, and whether its really bad. I think she makes, not intentionally, another point in my Technological Enervation zeitgeist, our rationalization and justification
