[Editor’s Note: This is the first week of From the Garden to the City Blog Tour.]
John Dyer has set up the perfect introduction in From the Garden to the City. He introduces himself as child of technology, a student of theology and a blogger. Then he sets up the question of the book:
Is technology neutral?
Dyer will spend the rest of the book addressing the question, but it is always good to get your thoughts on the table early.
When I was a Freshman at Wheaton College, I wrote a paper on the amorality of music. I argued that the music itself, apart from the lyrics, was not good or bad, it just was. I had not been introduced to Marshall McLuhan (the media ecologist best known for his phrase “the media is the message) at that point. In fact, I think it was John Dyer that introduced me to Marshall McLuhan during a blog book discussion about Shane Hipp’s book Flickering Pixels about 2 years ago. All I was trying to establish by my poorly written paper, was that it was ok to listen to Rock music, at least as long as the lyrics were appropriate. Even then I knew that music was not really neutral. It establishes mood, it helps set memories, it can help move us to worship.
Dyer found Marshall McLuhan when he was investigating whether technology is neutral and McLuhan becomes a prominent discussion partner throughout the rest of the book. I realized as I was re-reading the introduction that I have begun to adopt some of the McLuhan/Dyer’s ideas about media in regard to my book blogging. I try to re-read at least one book a month. I have set a goal that the second time I read a book, I read it in a different media (if I read in paperback the first time, I move to Kindle or Audiobook). Now that I have been re-reading in a different format for over a year, I know that the media affects my reception of a book.
If you have not already, pick up your copy of From The Garden to the City from Amazon or your favorite bookstore (or read a chapter from the book site) and join in the discussion.
Before we really get into the book, what are you biases up front?
Is technology neutral?
What did your church teach about technology as you were growing up?
[Next week, we review chapter 1: Perspective]
Jonathan Mould says
I think technology in itself is neutral until someone either uses it for good or bad.
As for church teaching when growing up: 1. I’m still growing up and 2. as far as I remember technology has never been taught about in church.
Adam Shields says
Can you have a technology that is not used? We will get to this later, but Dyer says that the very use of technology changes us, so we have to take that change into account as we evaluate whether a technology is good or bad.
Eric Dye says
You’re right, it hasn’t been taught be the Church, much. I hope we can help change that. Thanks, Jonathan!
BJ McGeever says
Here’s my overview of the Introduction: http://mcgvr.com/2011/08/articles/garden-series-01-introduction/
Adam Shields says
Thanks for participating BJ!
Eric Dye says
I loved this!
It’s wonderful read multiple takes on the same part of the book. I love your “redeem” comment –so true.
BJ McGeever says
Thanks Eric. I’ve got a post in the works about the use of “redeem”. I’ll let you know when I publish it.
Jerrod Burris says
Here are my thoughts from the introduction: http://www.amodeirevolution.org/2011/08/from-garden-to-city-blog-tour-1.html
Eric Dye says
Wanted to leave a comment on your blog, but the “comment as” was giving me a hard time — sorry about that! So here goes:
So, awesome! I love hearing about your journey. It amazes me how so many of us end up in the same place, yet have all come from different places and perspectives. Good, stuff.
Jerrod Burris says
Thank you. It blows my mind how many people there are from all over who share the same passions.
That’s frustrating that you couldn’t post….thanks for pointing that out, I’ve fixed the problem. I guess that’s what I get for using Blogger for my host – the amount of time I saved in not designing my site from scratch I’ve probably lost in writing code to bypass the regular template settings. Oh well – it’s cheap.
Wezlo says
For my introductory post over on Painfully Hopeful I introduced myself and explained why a dual class geek-pastor such as myself would be interested in book like John’s. Enjoy!
http://goo.gl/lO0U6
For the record, my thought is that the “good/neutral/bad” language actually misses the mark – and may dangerously blind us to a deeper issue. Technology is transformative, we are literally watching the presence of the Internet remap our brains. What’s different this time is our ability to map the process as it happens. Our deeper issue, as Ellul pointed out in the 20th Century is that we don’t need to go through the process of developing wisdom regarding these technologies the way that those who pioneered them did. All we need to do is flick a switch, touch a screen, or press a button to make the world change – while never having to understand HOW it happens. I think this horrible impact of what Ellul called “Technique.”
Phil says
I think you’re right about the danger of “flick the switch” mentality. I read Halberstam’s epic tome “The Fifties” and one of the story lines he covered was the dichotomy between the Manhattan Project scientists like Oppenheimer who saw the A-bomb for what it was–a world-changing monster–and the politicians who were hell-bent on winning the Cold War by being the first nation to develop an H-bomb.
If I could be so bold, I think that what you’re getting at is that we don’t look at what economists used to call “opportunity costs.” Once you make a decision, you can’t undo it. All the opportunities you didn’t take fade away. That’s what the MP scientists realized: they lost the opportunity to live life in a world free from nuclear threat.
As we begin to use technology indiscriminately to fix short term needs, we may actually be screwing ourselves over long term (ie the use of fossil fuels in industry & transportation over the past three hundred years).
Eric Dye says
I think you’re really going to enjoy this journey!
Phil says
I’m going to try and not read too far ahead in the book. I want to be able to be able to write fresh after reading. It’s just going to be very hard because I’m very intrigued by the idea that technology may not be neutral. I’ve often wondered about what we loss when we turn to tools and machines to accomplish task for us. Sure, my iPhone may help me gain enormous amounts of time by making certain daily tasks quicker, allowing me to do work as I can rather than waiting for a certain point in the day. Yet, I cannot help but ask myself if the technology I count as such a ‘plus’ could actually be a negative force in my life in some subtle way that will manifest itself later in life.
I’m so thankful that John is brining these questions to the Church’s attention, no matter what I might think about his conclusions—once I actually read them.
Here’s my review of the intro:
http://www.phillip320.com/2011/g2c-intro/
Eric Dye says
I love that you’re reading it each week and not going ahead … so cool. 🙂
Brent says
I’ve been looking for a book on this topic and it’s been a great read so far. I attend and serve in a church body that spans many generations and newer technologies are feared by many. It will be great to have a better understanding of how to approach the technologies we use and how they may affect us.
Eric Dye says
It’s very eye opening.
Greg says
Here is the short and concise response to the introduction. I am looking forward to diving into the chapters and engaging in discussion.
http://gdeitz.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/blogging-through-the-book-from-the-garden-to-the-city-introduction/
Eric Dye says
😀
Djs says
While personal use of technology is indeed a critical study for the individual believer’s walk, we must also keep in mind it’s role in God’s general revelation to mankind.
I tend to agree with Hugh Ross’ (http://reasons.org) opinion that God intended for us to eventually discover and build technology – including ensuring the right kinds and quantities of basic elements are present on Earth to do so (e.g. Silicon).
Why? The same reason God does anything – to demonstrate His limitless glory. Technology is the only way we can appreciate the human-known limits of His glory by examining the deepest recesses of space (looking out) and the deepest secrets of the cell (looking in).
These evidences are extremely compelling. As the human race has leveraged technology to discover the underpinnings of the physical world they have tried to use it to justify a world NOT created by God.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that the better our technology and methods get – they speak louder and louder the message that we could only be here by God’s hand.
If God indeed intended for technology to play this positive role, that would put it in the category of “Intended for good, frequently used by mankind for bad.”
In respect to the social applications of technology (cell phones, email, airplanes, internet), I largely view it as mankind’s striving to fulfill the built-in desire to have the capabilities of God (we sense that our 3rd dimension limits are unnatural) – but by mankind’s own power instead of following God’s plan.
Eric Dye says
Now THAT’S what I call a comment!!!!
Chris Ridgeway says
Sweet to seeing this kick off. And I think this blog tour is gonna help me discover a number of other thinkers doing good work on the theology meets technology area!
Me starting things here:
http://www.theodigital.com/2011/09/new-book-dont-eat-the-fruit-john-dyer.html
And I’m ready to do Chapter 1 this coming week!
Eric Dye says
Love what you wrote on Chapter 1 — great stuff!
SethC says
Seems to me like he opened a can of worms in this first chapter, I’m excited to see what he comes up with.
Here’s my post on the intro –
http://www.lifeasexperienced.com/2011/09/introduction.html
Eric Dye says
Nice way to put it 😉
Andy Darnell says
Whoa. Somehow I missed that this started. My Bad.
I love the topic. This is also something that I started really pondering during the Flickering Pixels Group Blog that we did 2 years ago. At the time, I was a volunteer in charge of media at our church. Eventually I became a burned out media guy and haven’t gotten back into that area of service yet.
I was pushing technology but I wanted it to be transparent. I wanted to remove obstacles to hearing the message. I heard a podcast once that resonated with me. It was all about transparent amplification.
I feel that technology can be more neutral than not if you approach it this way. I feel that we can become numb to it and it becomes just another part of the experience. The Message needs to be strong and sure. However, when you are introducing technology just for the wow factor, it can quickly overshadow the message and drown it out.
Looking forward to reading through the book with you guys. See you guys on week 6 which is about rebellion. A topic I know nothing about 🙂
Eric Dye says
No worries 😉
Jeremy Smith says
Unfortunately, at the age of 16, I became the one and only voice in a congregation of 500 to have this discussion. In my training seminars on MediaShout, I made sure that all the volunteers preparing and utilizing it knew this was only a tool to better our corporate worship. If it broke, we could still sing from hymnals. Also the amount of time should be minimal as the words are but a means to the end Of worshipping our Lord.
Thus, it is not neutral and we need to remember that. If we make a presentation from the pulpit fancy and complex, we may lose the focus on Him.