7.30.2019

What's the Memeing of this!




"Congress could be voting to make sharing Memes a $15,000 offense."  

That's the title of a recent article by Relevant Magazine.  It states Senators want to make it easier for license holders to sue people for the unlicensed use of their Intellectual Property (like images from your favorite films and tv shows).

Owners believe it is their right, and many lawmakers apparently agree.  But I think this would be a tremendous blow to free speech - and to modern culture in general.

Most lawmakers are very myopic. They see the internet as something easily separable from daily life, and Intellectual Property as something  easily separable from culture. They are not so easily unentwined.
  • In the first place, people basically live online these days. For many people it is a seamless lens through which they experience and interact with their world. A restriction of someone's freedom online is restricting their freedom in the rest of life. They are not separate. 
  • Secondly, creators of cultural content need to realize that you can only commoditize it so far - before killing it. I'd like to look at each of these things in turn.

So how does protecting Warner Brothers right to the image of Morpheus amount to a blow to my free speech?

That's because music and film are an integral part of human cultural expression. We're not talking about pirating whole films and selling them at a profit.  We're not even talking about taking images from films and printing posters to sell.  We're talking about taking an image from a film and pairing it with a thought you have and using it to communicate an idea.  Basically this is the equivalent of making reference to something in speech.

The media is a repository of images and concepts that unite people in a common culture.  People who may know nothing else about one another. For this reason the images in popular media become a touchstone to a shared cultural experience.

Let's say for a moment that Congress decided that certain combinations of words could be protected under copyright an unusable to anyone unless they paid a fee.

Suppose I owned the copyright to the expression "This is because,"  This phrase is designed to let readers know that the statement following an assertion provides the explanation for that assertion.  Now since I own it, you will be unable to use it to explain your own assertions unless you  pay me a royalty.

Now technically this is not a restriction of free speech.  Of course you are free to express a similar thought - provided you use different words.

A picture of me 
makes a less effective point
  • You could say "The reason for this is,"  so long as no one else owns it.  Once you use it, maybe you could hold the copyright and collect your own royalties. 
  • Another thing you could do is express the same thought with your new words. "Glack fineee kolpo," but that would severely limit the ability to make your point effectively.

While it may not technically be a restriction to free speech, the effect is stifling. It's exactly the same with pictures from films. Images from films that have been seen by many people have more communicative power than you trying to make a point with your own picture.

But that's not all.  Restricting the use of images from film is shortsighted.

Not allowing a robust "fair use" of copyrighted images also hurts the owners of intellectual property. Why?  

It does so because creative works thrive by use. That means that restricting the use of an image to people who might pay for a license - weakens its ability to self replicate. Seeing Lawrence Fishburne's face asking me what if he told me stuff all the time, actually helps keep The Matrix Films at the front of the public conversation. 

So what happens if you restrict the use of images like Morpheus to people willing to pay?  People will stop using it, and the popularity of the Matrix will eventually be surpassed by something more current. In fact the very system you designed guarantees the rapid decline in your properties value. 


Lawrence Lessig has a great talk about the importance of free access to culture which you can see below.




All that being said, I have a love/hate relationship with internet "Memes".  I use them as much (perhaps more,) than the next guy - but they really are pretty low on the meme totem pole.

That's because, they are really just one kind of Meme, and not even the best example of what a Meme can be.  Basically Memes are a biological metaphor for human culture. Many people don't know this, but a meme is any unit of culture, whose "fitness" is determined by its ability to perpetuate itself in human minds.

Morpheus: Memes are everywhere. They're all around us. Even now, in this very room (a meme). You can see them when you look out your window ( but the window is also a meme). You see it on the television (everything you watch as well as the device you watch it on, - all memes ). You can feel it when you go to work (meme)... when you go to church (meme)... when you pay your taxes. (meme)  It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That Memes are self replicating ideas that form a symbiotic relationship with human hosts. 



If you'd like to read about why I don't like internet meme's click here. If you'd like to see an example of how Calvinism successfully exploited memes click here.


6.21.2018

Shortsighted Zealotry Hurts the Gospel

I was surprised to see a post about Dan Wallace, that someone had shared on Facebook - it was an apology.  For those of you who don't know him, Dan Wallace is a NT scholar, and the man who wrote the textbook on intermediate Greek grammar - quite literally.

Wallace was apologizing for an assertion he made in a popular debate with agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman. In this debate Wallace had claimed that he had on good authority that a first century fragment of the Gospel of Mark had been found Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345 - now popularly known as First Century Mark (FCM). Such a discovery would, go a long way to prove, that the Gospels (and consequently their claims about Jesus,) could be traced back to Jesus' first disciples. Ehrman would have to reconsider much of what he now believes about the Gospels.



However, since this claim had not been published yet, it just stood as a compelling, yet unrealized conclusion to the debate. For supporters, Wallace seemed to have made a slam dunk, while Ehrman supporters were free to remain skeptical until the proof was in. Wallace had in good faith, just put his credibility on the line - for the Gospel, he thought.

This teaser, it turns out, did exactly what it was intended to do.  News of the Papyrus spread throughout the Evangelical community, invigorating the faithful, and giving a extra boost of confidence to apologists. Unless you are someone who is actively involved in defending the Christian faith - you may not have heard about this - but its really a big deal. Imagine that your family had always told you that you that you were descended from someone famous like Cleopatra or Napoleon. Everyone in your family accepted it as true, but most people assumed you were a crack pot. Now you have the proof. DNA evidence that, you are told, has markers which prove your ancestry. Now this reality which has informed so much of your personal beliefs about who you are can be proven. You now have the power to silence the skeptics. That's what something like First Century Mark would mean.

Well, as it turned out, further research done on FCM has proven that the fragment is not from the first century. Wallace's source, had passed along an unsubstantiated claim as if it were supported, for him to use as leverage in his debate with Ehrman. The source remains anonymous.

I hate to see a respected scholar like Dan Wallace manipulated like this - well I hate to see anyone manipulated really. 

It sounds conspiratorial, but a number of incidents like this that I've noticed lead me to believe there are a number of people within Evangelicalism who believe that they can further the influence of the Church in our culture through spurious claims (if not outright deception). 

I pointed out one such manipulation done by James Dobson before the 2016 presidential election, who claimed Donald Trump had been converted to Christianity. Another was Franklin Graham during the inauguration, he boldly proclaimed that the rain that fell as Trump took to the stage was a sign of God's blessing. Follow the links if you want to read what I had to say about these incidents. Most white Evangelicals assume that Christianity would fare better under a Republican administration. This is certainly true of its spokespersons like Dobson and Franklin - they are free to believe this. What they should not be free to do is distort the truth and manipulate people in order to make it happen.

Such shortsighted zealotry may be intended to gain a cultural or political advantage for Christianity, but when the lie is uncovered, these people ultimately end up doing more harm to the church than any of its outward opponents.

"Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!" - Romans 3:8-9






6.11.2018

A House Built on the Sand: Struggling Churches, Seminaries, and the Death of BibleWorks

On June 15th, (THIS WEEK,) BibleWorks will be closing down operations.  Support will continue
for users who have the most current version BW10, but for people like me - who still get by with one of the previous versions - good luck. I'm tempted to upgrade while I still can, but it's hard to know whether it's worth it - when the future is so uncertain.

I was an early adopter of BibleWorks back in the 90's. And I used the same old version for years, until I got ready to start Seminary. That's when I purchased BibleWorks 8 - and I love it. Maybe I'm part of the problem - because I'm content with the tools that I have - and can rarely be tempted to upgrade anything unless something breaks.  But I'll be sad to see them go.

I don't think it's just me though.  As I see it, there is a bigger problem responsible for the demise of BibleWorks, one that ties in with our Seminaries, and our Churches too.  Nearly the entire ecclesiological infrastructure here in the United States, is built on our faith in the power and natural wisdom of our nation's economic system.  We run and promote our churches like businesses. All of our institutions are economic legal entities.  We structure and run them like busineses. We promote them like products. We are utterly bound to the success or failure of this economy - its fickle consumers, and our ability to thrive by marketing ourselves as a product.

After the recession seminaries took a big hit economically - as people reconsidered the kind of education they wanted to go into massive amounts of debt for.  Many long term professors were let go so that younger (and cheaper,) professors could be brought in.  Many extension campuses were closed as visions of expansion were scaled back.  Some seminaries are even going entirely virtual.

Moody Bible to Close Spokane Campus, Cut Chicago FacultyFuller Seminary also plans to cut extension locations. (CT, NOV 9, 2017)

Now BibleWorks is shutting down operations, I assume for economic reasons.  Church attendance is down too, if we are to believe reports about the "nones".  Some, like mine own congregation, wonder how much longer we can continue to keep the doors open.  And yet, while Seminaries may close, ministers need to be trained. While people can still study the Bible, we still benefit greatly from tools like BibleWorks, and while Church's may have to close their doors, believers still need somewhere to worship.

Never before have we had so desperate a need for a new way of existing as the church.  I think we've have put too much faith in our economic system, the power of advertising, and the wisdom of our business strategies. So much in fact, that it seems like we barely know what church is without them. Instead of building relationships and communities around faith in Jesus, we have become increasingly transactional in our mode of operation, and detatched from one another. We tweak the music, we tweak the name, we engage broadly in service projects, but not deeply in people's lives. We engage in vigorous self promotion - but we fail to appeal because we are trying to sell something the world doesn't want. And we are trying to compete with others who are willing to offer the same services - without Jesus.  And if our churches are struggling - the collapse of our seminaries, and missionary societies, and every business financially dependent on the church will follow. 

It reminds me of Jesus' parable of the house built on the sand.

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”  - Matt 7:24-27

The church is a family after all, not a business or a product. You can't market it, marketing is antithetical to its mission. All this stuff seemed to be working very well, but that was when churchgoing was the respectable social norm. That era is over - and we have become the victims of market forces.

It makes me angry, that something as fickle as the economy could have such a huge effect on the operations of the church.  We need to look elsewhere for our inspiration. That is the primary purpose of this blog. Sure I post write a lot of posts about Sci-Fi and Pop Science, but my hope is that those posts, which generate a lot more traffic btw, will open the door to greater engagement with the main concern of this blog. The New Reformation that might be possible in the new digitally connected world.

I think we can learn from open collaborative modes of organization like the kind we see in the emergent forces of nature, and in the communities that develop free and open source software. These models, far more than our business management structures, reflect the creative and life supporting models established by God. Maybe this is not a time of tribulation, but a necessary disruption that will trigger the reorganization of a more vital way of being the Church in the future. It will all depend on our ability to adapt - to hold on to what is vital and let go of what is dragging us down.




6.02.2018

The Marshmallow Test's Squishy Conclusions About Success and Poverty

The Marshmallow Experiment was a study performed by Stanford professor Walter Mischel in the late 60's and early 70's.  In the study children were given a single marshmallow, which they could eat right away, but they were also told, that if they are able to wait for a predetermined amount of time, they would be given two marshmallows.  

A follow up study on the children in the 1990's seemed to show that those who were able to delay gratification went on to perform better in school, and had greater overall economic success in life. These findings were popularized in a book by Mischel, titled "The Marshmallow Test: Why Self Control is the Engine of Success.These days you can find a tons of videos of people performing the Marshmallow test on kids across Youtube The experiment has also been cited by numerous self help gurus. 







However, a new study performed by NYU’s Tyler Watts and UC Irvine’s Greg Duncan and Hoanan Quan suggests those findings are - well - a bit squishy.  

On June 1, 2018 article in The Atlantic reported that this new study found only limited support for the idea that delayed gratification lead to better outcomes. Instead, it suggested that the capacity to hold out for the second marshmallow was mostly shaped by a child’s social and economic background—and that that background is actually what determined a child’s long-term success.  Here's how I understand these findings. 


  • Children from a more economically privileged background perceived their situation from a viewpoint of abundance "I get access to stuff all of the time. I've been offered the choice between one or two marshmallows, and two is better than one - so I'll wait."  
  • Children from an economically underprivileged background operate from a viewpoint of scarcity and uncertainty. "Someone just offered me a marshmallow now, or two if I can wait. I can never be certain of the future. I want a marshmallow. One real marshmallow is better than the promise of two."


The message that Willpower = Success In Life, has been accepted as common wisdom in our culture.  I even bought into the theory myself for a while myself.  It's easy, because the conclusions present us with a way to take control of our future (and who doesn't want to do that?).  But that may actually be an empty promise. This is not to say that will power isn't an important life skill. But in reality there are so many other factors that play in to how well we do in life. 

We have a tendency - especially in this country,  to assume that a person's success is determined by willpower alone.  There is also a myth, touted especially in conservative circles, that poor people don't get ahead because they waste their money on drugs and alcohol, or nails, large screen TV.s and fancy clothes. I cite Senator Chuck Grassley's comment in 2017, about why poor people don't invest,

"I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies."

It reminds me of a SNL skit with Steve Martin, where a husband and wife are distressed over their bills and mounting debt. Just then a man walks in with a solution, a program to get out of debt called "Don't buy things you can't afford. I love Steve Martin, but I hated the skit.




It, like the Marshmallow Experiment, plays right into conservative stereotypes about poverty.  Stereotypes like the woman wearing furs and paying for her groceries with food stamps, or the man begging for cash on the corner who drives away in a Rolls Royce. Everyone knows someone whose seen someone like this - or so it would seem. 

The fact is, when you're poor there are a lot of hurdles you have to jump just to live at a state of normalcy.  For instance, it is generally recommended that you should not spend more than 30% of your income on rent/housing.  The people for whom this is possible have what is called "disposable income" - this allows them to do things like have a savings account, and pay off emergency expenses when they occur, instead of going into debt.  It allows them to plan for the future.  

For people whose housing expenses are greater, say over 50 percent of their monthly income, savings may be nearly impossible.  A $400 emergency car repair means completely different things to these two groups of people. And many people don't seem to get that.  It is especially concerning for Christians who don't get it.  

Self control is a valuable character trait, but it alone is not enough for a person to lift themselves out of poverty.  Society has a responsibility to properly value the time people put into the work they do.  If you don't make enough money to weather life's financial crises no amount of willpower will can keep you from the debt spiral. Books like Elizabeth Warren's "The Two Income Trap," and Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickeled and Dimed," have been helpful in giving me a broader more objective understanding of poverty and my own financial struggles. 

Poverty is a moral issue, not a moral failing, but a matter of justice. 



3.07.2018

Faith, In The Worlds of Marvel



Some Christians may be surprised, but within the Marvel Universe there are Christian characters - and their faith is not presented like the butt of some joke. Consider some recent films.

Aunt May's faith came across in the first Spider-Man movie, When Norman Osborn discovers that his enemy Spider-Man is actually his son's best friend - Peter Parker. He is instructed by his alter ego - the Green Goblin, to attack Peter's heart. His Aunt May. Here we see her praying for Peter with a picture of him and her now deceased husband Ben.


Steve Roger's faith also comes across in Captain America's skepticism towards Black Widow's comment, about the Asgardian's status, as possible gods - in the first Avengers film. "There's only one God ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."


Likewise, the mutant, Nightcrawler is also a man of faith, and it's an integral part of his origin story - this was told in the second X-Men film. Here you even see an example of him sharing his faith with Wolverine, one of the most cynical and walled off members of the X-Men, in the X-Men animated series from the 90's.


Some Christians may choose to nit-pick and find a reason to dismiss the significance of this, or to cast it in some nefarious light. But the important thing to notice here is not the depth or accuracy of the character's theology - but that these are respected characters - so their faith is not presented as something to be mocked or easily dismissed.
I don't expect comic books to teach my faith, that's not their job But when they portray a world where there is a place for sincere belief - I believe it's important to acknowledge the service they do to making the real world a place where civil discourse is possible in our culture. Can we realistically expect anything more?

3/15/2018 UPDATE

Thanks to J.D. Wofford, for pointing out a glaring oversight in the comments.

I forgot to include Daredevil in this list of Christian characters in the Marvel Universe. How could I have missed that. I love the Netflix series. My only excuse could be that I binge watch the episodes when they drop and since I haven't watched it recently Netflix was not at the front of my brain when I was thinking of these examples.

Matt Murdock (Daredevil,) is another Christian character in the M.U. who spends his days trying to help people as an attorney - and his nights doing all the other stuff that attorney's can't do - does he ever sleep? As a good Catholic he struggles with the kinds of decisions he is confronted with. Many times his inner struggle is revealed to us through his visit to the confessional. Here is such a scene from the awesome Netflix mini-series. 

2.12.2018

Monday Meme's: No Fear


Do you still see the slogan "No Fear" around anywhere?  I do, occasionally. 

According to Wikipedia the slogan "No Fear," is a lifestyle brand created in 1971 by Mark and Brian Simo, and Marty Moates of No Fear Inc.  It's associated with extreme sports, mixed martial arts, and a general contempt for social norms.

I used to see these window decals all over the place in the 1990's. The slogan was very popular then. And like every other trendy thing, it inspired a Christian clone in the Evangelical Subculture.


The Christian version would say "KNOW FEAR: Proverbs 1:7", because - you know - "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." 

Now I'm not really a big believer in T-shirt or bumper sticker evangelism - but that doesn't stop me from identifying what's wrong with this message. Actually, I'd recommend scraping the slogan "know fear" and just adopting the original slogan - which is just fine.

Why reject "Know Fear"?
Because it sounds like a threat.  What the Bible actually means by the word "Fear" here, is reverence, not terror - but your average person on the street doesn't know that. To them, it makes God sound like the villain preparing to inflict pain on his captive "You will know the meaning of Fear."

"No Fear" is already perfect
There really is nothing about the slogan "No Fear" that prevents Christians from adopting it as their own and subverting the meaning.  1 John 4:18 says "There is no fear in love. But perfect love casts out fear." Is there any message better than that?

I think the slogan "No Fear" subverted by the text 1 John 4:18 is a much more powerful message than the "clever" bit of wordplay based on Proverbs 1:7.  Its not repulsive, and it gets to the heart of the Gospel. But I guess that means you can't sell your own decals - what with the Trade Mark and all. Shoot.


2.05.2018

Monday Meme: COEXIST



You've probably seen this meme on a bumper sticker.  Occasionally I'll be riding in the car with another Christian and have a chance to point it out to them, and ask them what they think about it. Usually the ones with very strong convictions say they don't like it. They'll say "it's relativism" or "new age bull crap".  I know where they are coming from.  

There is no way around the fact that Christianity is a proselytizing belief system. The great commission is spelled out in Matthew 28:19 "Go and make disciples of all nations. . ." One way of looking at this is "I know the truth, and you believe lies. If you do not recognize this, you are my enemy and I must give you no quarter."  This response is ingrained by the Evangelical Media Culture which is hostile and highly politicized. This response is not helpful, instead of building bridges it builds walls. That's when I tell them I think it's Biblical. "No!" they say, "How do you get that?"  That's when I like to point out this passage from the Apostle Paul.

18If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people. 19Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mineI will repay,” says the Lord. 20Rather, if your enemy is hungryfeed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 
 - Romans 12:18-20

Here we see that what Paul advises is very different from what passes for wisdom today.  Instead of giving no quarter, he says if your enemy is hungry feed him, if he is hungry give him something to drink. 

We've forgotten that our battle is FOR flesh and blood, not against it.  These people with beliefs so different from our own are not obstacles, they are our mission field.

What's the Memeing of this!