A Defense of Nuclear Power

In the decade or so that I worked in nuclear power, I never found a comprehensive apologetic for nuclear power that was published in the marketplace. All of the arguments were available piecemeal or in a more unified manner from people inside the nuclear power guild, but none from someone who didn’t have a clearly vested interest in keeping nuclear plants running.

 Michael H. Fox is an emeritus professor in the Department of Environmental and Radiological and Health Sciences at Colorado State University. Here is an individual who is outside of the commercial and nuclear power world who has access to the best science about the most concerning aspects of the risk of nuclear––radiation and cancer.

 Fox’s conclusion is that compared to imminent risk of climate changes, the risks of nuclear power are worth it. He spends nearly three hundred pages making his case by considering the basic arguments for and against nuclear power, as well as the case for and against other forms of non-fossil energy.

 The beauty of this volume is that it is written at a level that can serve as an introduction, but it also ramps quickly into the explanations for the more technologically adept. With the clear structure of each chapter, I was able to skim past those explanations that I am familiar with based on my experience as an operator and instructor. By the end of each chapter, however, the progressive development of each explanation had me reading carefully to follow his explanations. Even regarding the topics that I am less familiar with––such as the mechanism of cancer development in cells––Fox’s explanations were sufficient for me to understand the more complex aspects based on his earlier explanations.

 This volume is, therefore, both a suitable introduction and a valuable reference on the topic of nuclear power.

Summary 

The book is divided into three nearly equal parts. The first part deals with Fox’s explanation of the global warming and the contribution of Carbon Dioxide from coal and natural gas. He also explains the limitations of solar power and wind power. Fox is positive toward the benefits of renewable sources of energy. However, unlike many of the rabid proponents, he is realistic about the limitations in terms of capacity and footprint required, and he recognizes the ongoing need for baseline energy generation that fossil or nuclear will provide. Thus the future is in nuclear power, if real changes are to be made to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

 The second part is a discussion of radiation and its biological effects. This is the section that plays to Fox’s strength, as he explains some basic physics, then digs quickly in to a realistic analysis of the dangers of radiation. He doesn’t hide the real risk, but he also doesn’t overplay it. The reality, as Fox explains, is that any radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer, but the amount of additional exposure due to nuclear power is negligible compared with naturally occurring background.

 This is the most significant argument against nuclear power and Fox handles it well. However, the scientifically ignorant will continue to persist in their argument that any risk is unacceptable. For some reason this argument is powerful against nuclear power when it isn’t for other concerns. The miniscule risk increase of cancer from living near a nuclear plant, even using the conservative (i.e., inflated) estimates required by law, pales in comparison to having a speed limit over 15 MPH.

 The third part focuses on the risks of nuclear power. Fox deals with concerns about nuclear waste, which have been overblown by opponents. He deals with the real and tragic history of the three significant accidents in the history of nuclear power. He is fair about the consequences, but also notes the real learning that has taken place and points toward the attempts by anti-nuclear groups to grossly misrepresent the consequences. Then he deals with the issue of Uranium mining, also dealing with the failings in early nuclear power to deal appropriately with the risks of pollution. That damage was avoidable and is being avoided in properly conducted mining enterprises now. Finally, Fox concludes with a chapter debunking in summary the five most significant myths used to argue against nuclear power. He does this by accepting the truth in the claims and then showing why the arguments aren’t realistic or persuasive.

Conclusion

 Fox writes well and he is honest in his assessment of risks. In other words, he presents the reality of risks on all sides, without overstating his case. I would have thoroughly enjoyed this book simply because of the robust integrity Fox demonstrates, without having to agree with him. As it turns out, I agreed with the substance of Fox’s arguments, as well. He is realistic and helpful in how he argues. He is looking for solutions to problems instead of trying to manipulate emotions and control people’s lives through excessive regulation. There are points that I disagree with Fox, typically on the political implications of his arguments, but overall the case is well made and reasonable.

 If the modus operandi of environmentalists is followed, where only people that have PhD’s in climatology have a right to speak about climate change, then Fox’s  book will have amazing convincing power. Notably, the majority of anti-nuclear advocates speak from outside of the pool of people that have expertise in the area.  Unfortunately, well-reasoned arguments like that of Fox are much less likely to gain headlines than “Fukushima is leaking, we’re all going to die and the government doesn’t care.” Indeed, that is largely the nature of a recent book which includes the Union of Concerned Scientists among its authors.

 If you have questions about nuclear power, buy this book and read it. If you are a proponent of nuclear power, buy this book and cite it in your arguments. This is, hands down, the best one stop reference on the subject I have encountered.

Why We Need Nuclear Power: The Environmental Case

$31.46

By Michael H. Fox

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this book was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

On Student Questions

Don’t be that student at seminary (or any other institution of higher learning).

Yes, I’m talking about that one.

Every class has that student who wants to teach the professor and the whole class something.

It goes like this: The student read this book. Or, maybe he’s read several books on a topic. Or, perhaps her pastor taught a series of sermons on a particular topic with a particular slant.

None of these qualifies this individual as an expert. Remember this, lest you become “that student.” The reason students are students is because they do not have the knowledge or expertise that the professor has.

This seems like a simple idea that would be clear to everyone, but educators themselves have allowed "that student" to continue to exist, in part, because they are too soft on ignorance.

Are there bad questions?

There is an adage among educators that “the only bad question is the question you don’t ask.”

This isn’t entirely true. First, there was the time when a student raised his hand to ask where we could get the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I realize this was the first day of class, but that was an insanely stupid question. The professor did a remarkable job in responding graciously. Nevertheless the question was both asked and bad.

The second kind of bad question is the non-interrogative question. This can take two different forms. Sometimes these “questions” can be phrased as comments that are long and rambling, after which the speaker adds, “What do you think?” That is, if they bother to make it a true question at all. These are usually designed more to demonstrate the questioners brilliance or to teach the audience something.

Another form often taken by the non-interrogative question is the “bear trap question.” These are used when a student has a nugget of information––usually trivia––that they want to surprise everyone (particularly the professor) with. These questions are usually tossed out in ways that, whether intended or not, break up the flow of the lecture or discussion. More often than not, they end up making “that student” look foolish to everyone else, though wise in her own eyes. Fortunately for “that student” Scripture is silent on this topic. Or not.

The reality that seems to escape the understanding of “that student” and his inbred cousins is that no one in the room is paying to hear him speak. 

No One Paid for Student Commentary

Everyone that has paid tuition to sit in a class is expecting to gain insight information from a highly qualified professional, usually a Doctor, who has invested countless hours reading, researching, discussing, teaching, are writing about the topic under consideration.

This means that the fact that “that student” has read a recent book is extremely unlikely to shatter the foundations of the professor’s worldview.

In reality, since I’ve been hanging around the academic community for a while, I’ve realized that most new books just rehash old books. Therefore, in the unlikely event that I’ve actually read some new book my professor has not read, he or she has likely encountered the thesis of that book in a dozen books previously.

View fullsize

The democratization of education has led to the feeling that everyone has an opinion that counts. Wikipedia, blogs (like this one!), and growing ease of self-publishing (particularly e-publishing) lend credibility to quackery and foolishness. They also increase the popular misconception that one can make a contribution to any field of interest nearly instantaneously merely once one has done a little research.

If you think this, you are wrong. Feel free to do your research, but please hold all comments and pseudo-questions until the end. This is part of stewardship of the education of you and those in the class with you.

Far from being a mere rant by a student about his peers. I am actually hopeful that this discussion might change lives. Perhaps even yours, dear reader. With that in mind, I’ve included this helpful flowchart for when and how to ask questions. This did not originate with me, but it is so important that it bears sharing across the world and among all generations.

The moral of the story is not, “Don’t talk in class.” Instead, we should demonstrate neighbor love through our class participation. Only ask questions that will contribute to everyone’s understanding. And NEVER ask questions to show how smart you are. Most likely if you do, you’ll only end up looking dumber anyway.

---

Link photo courtesy of Sean Dreilinger. Used under a creative commons license in an unmodified state. The source of the photo is: http://ow.ly/HzUro 

Dress Colors, Social Media, and Questionable Research

Last week on Thursday, there were two hot topics on Social Media that kept many people amused (and somewhat less than maximally productive) for quite some time. The first was a debate on the color of a dress. 

Someone posted a picture on tumblr in mid-February and asked for help determining what color it is. (Here is the link, note there is some questionable language in the post.) 

Given a few weeks and a snow storm in the Southeast of the US, which gave a number of people downtime to try to discover the end of the internet, and presto!, we have a viral debate raging on social media about absolutely nothing. It's sort of like an episode of Seinfeld, only it lasted more than 22 minutes and really isn't nearly as funny.

For nerds (and I include myself in this descriptor), the science behind the confusion is pretty interesting. In fact, I found the post at Wired that explained the nature of the confusion to be enthralling. There is a scientific explanation for the perception of different colors depending on the setting.

The Social Phenomenon

More significant to my mind, though, is the way that such a benign and pointless social phenomenon has been reported in the media. Not only did it inspire Wired to write a post to cash in on the web traffic, but all of the major news network jumped on the story.

To put this in plain English, with everything going on in the world, a story about a social media debate got picked up by the news.

This reveals some of the significance of social media. It isn't just a fad that will be gone like slap-wrap bracelets (which are still around, just not as popular as when I was a kid). Social media is driving the way society thinks.

Is this the way it should be? I don't think so, but that's not the point. This particular cultural event reinforces the reality that we cannot simply ignore the phenomenon of social media or demonize it. We have to figure out how to meaningfully engage this tool without allowing it to cheapen our own way of thinking. To that end, Karen Swallow Prior has written a helpful blog at Christianity Today that details some of the potential lessons to be learned from #TheDress.

I have written previously on some of the dangers of social media, based on their potential to damage personal relationships. I have also written about reasons why Christians should (and should not) blog, which is pertinent because social media is the platform that conveys the bloggers message to a broad audience.

The answers are not immediately obvious, but a debate over dress colors and coverage of escaping llamas drew national attention and broad social media engagement. The church needs to figure out how to use this tool and how it fits into a Christian worldview.

The Research Phenomenon

A second significant issue is the way that informal reporting and researching techniques are being used to promulgate internet news. One example of this is, ironically, this post, which relies on internet searches and cultural artifacts to present a case. Recognizing this irony, and not claiming to be an actual news source, I press on with my opinion.

In a 1995 book, Telling the Truth, Lynne Cheney notes,

“From 1968 to 1988, the average sound bite for a presidential candidate on the network evening news had plummeted from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. In the 1992 campaign the length of time would become shorter still: 8.4 seconds. Meanwhile, the portion of the news taken up by correspondents’ comments rose to 71 percent, with candidates sharing the remainder of the time with voters and political experts. A study of the New York Times showed a similar trend. From 1960 to 1992, the average continuous quote or phrase from a candidate in a front page story fell from fourteen lines to six lines. In both television and print, reporters increasingly had power to turn the candidates’ words and deeds into illustrative material for the stories they wanted to tell.”

Twenty years after Cheney wrote this, the problem has not gone away. Indeed, if anything, social media platforms like Twitter have caused people, politicians included, to self-limit to 140 characters and thus strip their own comments of context. We have made it easier for someone to reframe our comments according to their own liking.

But a second significant theme is the prevalence of telling stories. In many cases the point is no longer to reveal truth, but to tell a compelling stories. This allows bloggers and media personnel to look for rapid sources of some credibility that will carry their message in a way that will get clicks and support their narrative.

Often this results in a tight circle self-reference with dubious credibility. This Tweet, captured on the day after the dress color debate went viral illustrates the research phenomenon:

#media pic.twitter.com/3juSOx4RAw

— Jake Beckman (@jakebeckman) February 27, 2015

Does this mean that the analysis is not correct? No. It may be correct. In fact, it may be so inconsequential that it doesn't matter if it is correct. After all, do we really care what color the dress is?

However, this is merely an illustration of what I believe to be a broader phenomenon that includes more significant topics. Experts are citing experts citing experts. Who knows that the chain of proof doesn't lead back to my blog, or another similar platform that also lacks credibility on a particular subject? 

We must seek truth. This means that we need to be skeptical of some of what gets conveyed as news. Just because we read it on the internet, even from a widely published source, does not mean it is credible or true. This also means we need to avoid crucifying people because of the way someone presents someone else's opinion on a blog or social media. Learning to do these things well is a critical task for Christians in the 21st century.

The Puritan Practice of Biblical Meditation

In his 2014 book An Infinite Journey, Andy Davis notes, 

“Meditation on Scripture is essential to gaining a deep understanding of the truth of its words. Without meditation, the words of our daily reading can flow through our minds like water in a pipe and make no impact. But by means of meditation, we give the word a chance to settle in our minds and do its work.”

Similarly in the recently published Prayer, Tim Keller writes, 

“Many have written about the hyperactivity of today’s contemporary society and our cultural attention deficit disorder that makes slow reflection and meditation a lost art. Nonetheless, if prayer is to be a true conversation with God, it must be regularly preceded by listening to God’s voice through meditation on the Scripture.”

Both of these men are pointing in the same direction, a return to a spiritual discipline that often eludes believers in an age of constant connectivity. Both Keller and Davis spend a few pages on the topic with some basic instructions, but there is a room for a great deal more practical instruction in the practice of Christian meditation. David Saxton provides such instruction in his recent book, God’s Battle Plan for the Mind: The Puritan Practice of Biblical Meditation.

It may be that the focus on the Puritans will turn some readers off from the beginning. However, that is a thoroughly unfair bias. As Leland Ryken shows in his book, Worldy Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were, there is a lot more to the Puritans than Max Weber and Nathaniel Hawthorne allow. In fact, while we cannot adopt everything the Puritans espoused wholesale, the contemporary Christian can benefit greatly by exploring the deeply scriptural worldview they developed.

As such, Saxton’s book really is helpful. Saxton is, in essence, bringing the Puritans forward to a contemporary audience and summarizing their perspective on a neglected spiritual discipline. While extremely beneficial to read, the Puritans are often quite prolix at times. This makes books like this a welcome addition to an arsenal of texts on Puritan theology.

God’s Battle Plan for the Mind is a short book at 138 pages of text. It is divided into twelve short chapters and a conclusion. In a very practical manner, Saxton presents an apology for biblical meditation, differentiates it from unbiblical forms, and demonstrates some of the times that biblical meditation is most helpful and necessary. Thankfully, the book does not leave the reader at the theoretical, but pushes into practical methods for meditation on the Word.

The last six chapters deal with the practical aspects of mediation. Saxton presents some specific instructions on how to choose subjects for meditation, how to be motivated to meditate, what benefits to look for in meditation, and ways to recognize enemies of meditation. The final chapter is an even more basic primer of how to get started developing the habit of meditation.

If you love Puritan theology, you will thoroughly enjoy this volume, which is well stocked with Puritan quotes. If you want to deepen your walk with Christ, you will find this book very beneficial, because it points readers toward practices which are important for becoming more Christlike. If you need encouragement in your walk with Christ, this short text will provide ample exhortation. It is worth your time to read it.

The most significant weakness of this volume, in my mind, is a bias toward Christian separatism. Saxton rightly notes the distraction which our entertainment saturated society can find, but he goes on to cite ungodly friends, by which he means unspiritual ones not merely ruffian acquaintances, and a “failure to decisively separate from the world” as major obstacles to meditation. While these latter factors may negatively impact spiritual disciplines if we never separate from worldly amusements and spend all our time among non-Christians, Saxton seems to be proposing an intentional withdrawal from culture. This may be helpful for maintaining a focus on Christ, but it also removes opportunities for evangelization and influencing a culture which is need of both salt and light. This is not a major emphasis in the book, however, so the value of the volume is not diminished.

Buy the book, apply the technique. There is little doubt that meditating on the Word of God is both biblical and necessary for growing in the knowledge of Christ.

God's Battle Plan for the Mind: The Puritan Practice of Biblical Meditation

$16.20

By David W. Saxton

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this book was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

I have previously reviewed Andy Davis' book, An Infinite Journey for Themelios, the academic journal of The Gospel Coalition. Click here to read the review.

A Poem by Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss)

"A Short Condensed Poem in Praise of Reader's Digest Condensed Books"

By Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss)

It has often been said
There's so much to be read,
you never can cram
all those words in your head.

So the writer who breeds
more words than he needs
is making a chore
for the reader who reads.

That's why my belief is
the briefer the brief is,
the greater the sigh
of the reader's relief is.

And that's why your books
have such power and strength.
You publish with shorth!
(Shorth is better than length.)

Today is the 111th anniversary of the birthday of Dr. Seuss. Across the US, many elementary schools will be celebrating the literary oeuvre of a man who wrote mainly nonsense. Though his storylines often lacked obvious purpose, he created characters that have engaged his readers for decades and led to a colorful silliness being passed on through several generations.

What American child has not read (or heard read) Green Eggs and Ham or would not recognize even the jaunty red and white striped hat of the cat in the hat? Or One Fish, Two Fish? A significant percentage of high school graduations, at least in the season when I went to a number of them, seemed to reference Oh, the Places You'll Go! Additionally, many of the scholarly tomes that I read, which otherwise lack any sort of a sense of humor, cite The Lorax as a viable inspiration for environmental ethics.

In any case, I offer this poem, which was printed on the dust jacket of Reader's Digest Condensed Books, for your entertainment in honor of Geisel's birthday.

Christian Bioethics

The recently release book by B&H Academic, Christian Bioethics, is a good introduction to a series of very important issues that face the people in the developed world today.

Medical technologies seem to press ahead without regard to ethics. The only question that seems palatable to most people in this day is, “Can we do it?” Very few are asking the important question, “Ought we do it?”

The moral vacuum of the culture compounds this problem, as subjective concerns of emotion and desire are promoted in favor of an ethical schema that anticipates objective answers founded on God’s structuring of reality. Fortunately Ben Mitchell and Joy Riley have a more biblical approach.

C. Ben Mitchell has a PhD in medical ethics and has taught moral philosophy for a number of years in a Christian context. D. Joy Riley is an M.D., with an MA in bioethics. With a strong background in the theory of ethics and the technical arguments related to bioethics, Mitchell and Riley can speak with authority and expertise where many others would need to be more tentative.

The book is written conversationally, which makes it suitable for non-academic audiences. Indeed, the subtitle of the volume is, A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families. As an academic ethicist, this was one of the things I liked least about the book, but for the primary target audience, the approach is likely to be helpful.

The book consists of four parts. First, Riley and Mitchell begin by laying a foundation for Christian Bioethics. What forms of medicine are out there and how should we view them? How does Scripture speak to contemporary cases that are not clearly addressed? These are important questions that are well answered in the first two chapters.

Next, the authors discuss the sanctity of human life as it pertains to abortion and euthanasia. They explain these things in terms that are intelligible and helpful. In the third part, Mitchell and Riley discuss the ethics of infertility and assisted reproductive technologies. They also address the issues of organ donation, transplantation, and cloning. In the final section, the authors address the issues related to anti-aging technologies and the centrality of understanding and respecting our humanity in the contemporary age.

 The greatest strength of this volume is that it is written for a popular audience. It doesn’t use a lot of technical term, though it occurs in the context of a conversation between two experts. Based on my recent experience teaching ethics to laypeople, resources like this are necessary and helpful. Another strength is that each chapter has a series of references that can be used for further study and elaboration. This is again important as the overflow of information on the internet leaves us often wondering which expert we can trust and how someone got to their conclusions.

I am not a fan of written dialogue as an approach to moral reasoning. Thus, I find Augustine’s early philosophical works rather boring and less helpful than they might be. As such, I would have preferred it had this volume taken a more straightforward approach and presented the material in normal prose instead of relying on dialogue. However, this is a stylistic preference and not a rejection of the substance of the book.

 I commend this to readers who are looking for answers to some very important ethical questions. I plan on recommending it as a resource to people in my church who have questions about this topic. It is up to date and informative. It is written with a pastoral heart and academic acumen. It should be a trusted resource for the church for the near future.

Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families (B&H Studies in Christian Ethics)

$18.49

By C. Ben Mitchell, D. Joy Riley MD

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this text was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part Three

This is part Three of Three posts in a series on the history of Mercy Ministry in the Christian Church. Part One is accessible here.  Part Two can be found here.

After introducing the topic and giving a brief overview of Mercy Ministry in the Early Church, Patristic Era, Medieval Era and Reformation Era, today's post emphasizes the Modern era, bringing the discussion up to the present time. 

---

Photo by Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. Used under creative commons license. http://ow.ly/IHxpd 

As a reaction to the religious wars of the Reformation Era, Deism began to rise and people began to try to demonstrate that non-Christians could be ethical, too. Divisions began to form between Church and State, with none starker than the division in France due to the French Revolution. When the church and state split, the larger political organization rose as a more significant participant in what had previously been the church’s role in dealing with physical needs.

 The roots of modern evangelicalism are in British non-conformist religion. The four central aspects of early evangelicalism were conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicism and activism.[1] The key for today’s discussion is activism, which refers to the belief that the internal change brought about by gospel conversion would be worked out in external application of the gospel to life. It was this tendency toward activism that led William Carey to build businesses to improve the local economy in India, end injustices like the burning of widows, and start schools instead of only preaching the gospel. This also drove people like William Wilberforce and John Newton to fight for the abolition of slavery.

 It about the same time as the rise of evangelicalism that the higher critical approach to Scripture was developed. Faith became subjective, the integrity of the Bible was frequently questioned by Friedrich Schleiermacher, Julius Wellhausen, and others. Deism became increasingly accepted through the work of individuals like Thomas Paine. In summary, people began to doubt the central truths of Christianity, but retained their desire for the works of the Christian religion. As a result, mercy ministry began to take precedence over doctrine. Later, liberal theologians such as Walter Rauschenbusch began to promote the idea that the Kingdom of God was a condition of earthly justice that had no true doctrinal content.

 Unfortunately, the morals of the church cannot stand without a doctrinal foundation. Individuals like J. Gresham Machen, B. B. Warfield, and Charles Hodge resisted the discrediting of Scripture. Others reacted more strongly against the doctrinal decay of the theological liberals by rejecting the social aspect of ministry. This led to the rise of fundamentalism, particularly in the United States, which promoted doctrinal truth and evangelism without significant concerns for mercy ministry. This overreaction was a divergence from the central traditions of Christianity and the resurgence of an interest in mercy ministry among doctrinally conservative Christians should be seen as a course correction not an innovation.

Carl F. H. Henry

 Carl F. H. Henry’s brief but significant book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, speaks about the loss of social ministry among theologically fundamental Christians: “The social reform movements dedicated to the elimination of such evils do not have the active, let alone vigorous, cooperation of large segments of evangelical Christianity.”[2] That reality began to change in the mid Twentieth Century as some theologians began to shift the language from doing missions (which focus only or mainly on saving souls) to mission (which focuses on participating in God’s redemptive work in all creation).

Recently there has been an explosion in conferences, sermons, and books on the topic of Mercy Ministry. Evangelicalism has largely recovered its vision for working out the implications of the gospel in the world. Our task on our External Journey, with this cloud of witness in history behind us, is proclaim the gospel while we are serving them. Or, to enable them to hear our proclamation because we have met their physical needs.

“ [S]ome can’t hear our proclamation [of the Gospel] until they’ve been delivered physically from injustice and other forms of suffering. Until we pick them up from the road, they won’t hear of the good news. Today, millions are being drugged, sold, and raped multiple times a day in sex trafficking. Do you think they will hear your proclamation? I don’t.[3]”

[1] David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (New York: Routledge, 1989), 5.

[2] Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1947), 3.

[3] Tony Merida, Ordinary: How to Turn the World Upside Down (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H, 2015), 29.

Jabberwocky

by Lewis Carroll

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
   and the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
   The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
   The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
    Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
   And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
   The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
   And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
   The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
   He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
   Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh, Callay!"
   He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
   Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
   And the mome raths outgrabe.

The Fate of Reading in a Digital World

My house is filled with books. More than a decade ago, we did an inventory of our books and we had more than a thousand. Since that time I’ve earned a Master of Divinity and am well into a Doctor of Philosophy. The number of books has continued to mount. I have heaps more today than I did then.

Part of our family strategy in homechooling is to have a great number of good books on hand so that there are always new stories and explanations to explore. In part this is necessary because the closest local library is not particularly well stocked with good books for children. In part this is the result of a couple of bibliophiles wanting to pass along something good.

In any event, when I saw a review of Naomi Baron’s book Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital Age pop up in First Things, I was intrigued. I've been rather dismissive of the e-reader movement and was particularly interested to hear her analysis a decade or so into the online reading explosion.

Baron is a Professor of Linguistics at American University. She is also in charge of a center at that university that focuses on pedagogy. She is uniquely qualified to write this volume. In her introduction, Baron admits she will be going beyond the usual linguistic practice of describing the is into the helpful tasks of considering the ought. This willingness to make some judgments, albeit with grace, makes this book very valuable.

The question Baron picks up in the volume is whether “digital reading is reshaping our understanding of what it means to read.” (xii) She goes on to argue “that digital reading is fine for many short pieces or light content we don’t intend to analyze or reread.” (xii) Her conclusion is that digital reading is here to stay, but so is reading in print. Each has a niche in the publishing world and the academic world. Thus the future is a complementary coexistence rather than extinction of one or the other.

Baron begins with a state of the book address, where she lays out the history of the rise of the e-book and the shift in print publishing. She then provides a history of reading that will make a lover of reading swoon. This chapter is really worth the price of the book. In the third chapter she discusses the impact that e-reading is having on writing styles, where media are moving to punchier, shorter chunks. (This is why my blog is almost never longer than 800 words.) This is a chapter that is historiographic and, again, very enjoyable for one who loves reading.

In Chapter Four Baron explains the attraction to reading onscreen, for those that appreciate it. She is fair in presenting the strongest arguments for that form of reading. Still she notes that e-books and e-readers may not be as green as claimed, particularly since most people don’t simply dispose of their hard copy books, but often resell them, lend them, and pass them down. She also notes that one does not really own an e-book, but merely accesses its information. The more significant concern she notes is that retention in onscreen reading tends to be lower. Still, she find strengths of the medium and promotes them.

What comes of the discussion is that onscreen reading is more suitable for one-off reading. Though annotation methods are improving in e-books, they still lag significantly behind the marginalia of trusty paper copies. In Chapter Six, Baron discusses the phenomena of social reading, which began with the book club and has progressed to sharing quotes through Goodreads and other platforms. This sometimes helps people get through books, but it often keeps students from approaching texts as cleanly.

Baron dwells on one of the most significant downsides of e-books in her seventh chapter. This is the fact that people feel there is something lacking from the aesthetic experience of reading a book on a screen. It just isn't the same as reading a real book. It is the loss of the sensory aspect of reading that has some young people hooked on paper books. And then, there is the fact that a print book has no games or apps. There is no chance that an e-mail will pop up or Facebook will demand one’s attention in the background of a paper book. Studies continue to show that some of these real issues continue to make real books a better option for deep reading.

Despite its shortcomings for some uses, Baron concludes that onscreen reading is here to stay as a complement to reading on paper. Her case is compelling and winsomely argued.  The ability to get a vast number of resources online is extremely helpful for quick research. At the same time, the opportunities to annotate, spatially associate, and focus on a tangible object are essential for deep reading. Both forms of readings have a purpose and both are here to stay.

I enjoyed this book immensely. Not just because I agree with her conclusions, but because it was well written, well researched and accessible. If you are a bookish sort of person, then put this volume on your to-be-read list. But buy it in paper copy because it is worth reading deeply and well.

Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World

$17.48

By Naomi S. Baron

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this book was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

A Brief History of Mercy Ministry in the Church - Part Two

This is part Two of Three posts in a series on the history of Mercy Ministry in the Christian Church. Part One is accessible here.

After introducing the topic and giving a brief overview of Mercy Ministry in the Early Church,  today's post emphasizes the Patristic Era, Medieval Era and Reformation Era.

---

Patristics

Photo by .craig. Used by Creative Commons License.  http://ow.ly/IHw3G 

During the Patristic Era, Christianity was the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. This period ended when the Roman Empire fell. The church rapidly went from political underdog to a political favorite. The new found favor led to a convergence between worldly politics and church offices. The bishop in Rome began to have more and more power, eventually gaining more significance in the eyes of the people than the emperor. Notably, it was Pope Leo I who negotiated a treaty with the Attila the Hun, not the Roman Emperor. By the time the Roman Empire collapsed due to repeated invasions in 590 A.D., the Church was a greater uniting force than the vestiges of the Roman government.

 The Emperor Julian, often called “The Apostate,” made an active attempt to remove Christianity from the Roman Empire in the middle of the 4th century. In his diatribe against Christians he wrote, “The impious Galileans not only feed their own poor but ours as well, welcoming them into their agape; they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.” Obviously there is some sarcasm here, but the point should be well taken that Christians had a significant impact in their society because they did mercy ministries.

 Ambrose of Milan wrote, “It is justice that renders to each one what is his, and claims not another’s property; it disregards its own profit in order to preserve the common equity.” (Ambrose, On the Duty of the Clergy, i.) So here, the merciful action of Christians is looking after the interests of others even at their own expense.

 For Augustine, the Bishop of the North African city of Hippo, seeking the common good was a demonstration of Christ’s command to demonstrate neighbor love:

“Now you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection. . . . From this precept proceed the duties of human society, in which it is hard to keep from error. But the first thing to aim at is, that we should be benevolent, that is, that we should cherish no malice and no evil design against another. For man is the nearest neighbor of man. (Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church)”

In the same work, he urges his readers to care for the physical needs of their neighbors. Drawing an all-encompassing circle around the needs of the human body.

“Man, then, as viewed by his fellowman, is a rational soul with a mortal and earthly body in its service. Therefore, he who loves his neighbor does good partly to the man’s body, and partly to his soul. What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline. (Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church)”

What we can see in this period of church history is that there was a theological impetus toward mercy ministry. Augustine, who remains a central figure in the development of Christian doctrine, balanced the need for evangelism with the need for meeting the physical needs of the people around. Far from a novel invention of the millennial evangelicals, mercy ministry has been a core Christian practice.

Medieval

The Medieval period runs from the fall of Rome to the beginning of the Protestant reformation. This is a period of time that sees the Papacy as largely the most significant political force in the known world. The Popes are the kingmakers, since according to the theological understanding of the day, the Pope held the keys to the kingdom of heaven while the kings only controlled daily life.

 Monasticism was a leading movement in implementing mercy ministry in the middle ages. Among the Sayings of the Fathers that record the words of many of the early monks, and which were influential in later monasticism, we have such statements as these:

“From our neighbor are life and death. If we do good to our neighbor, we do good to God: if we cause our neighbor to stumble, we sin against Christ. (From The Sayings of the Fathers, cited in George W. Forell, Christian Social Teachings (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 85.)

A brother asked an old man: “There are two monks: one stays quietly in his cell, fasting for six days at a time, and laying many austerities upon himself: and the other ministers to the sick. Which of them is more acceptable to God?” The old man answered: “If the brother, who fasts six days, even hung himself up by his nostrils, he could never be the equal of him who ministers to the sick. (Ibid.)”

Thomas Aquinas built on Scripture, church tradition and Aristotelian philosophy to argue: “Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by constant and perpetual will.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II/2.58.1.) So internal holiness is not the only goal, because “justice is an external operation, in so far as either it or the thing we use by it is made proportionate to some other person to whom we are related by justice. . . . Therefore the proper act of justice is nothing else than to render to each one his own.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II/2.58.11.) Thomas was operating under a view of nature that held to common natural rights to the earth, and so God’s plan was for the earth to meet all the needs of the inhabitants of earth.

 In addition to these sources, there are many other evidences of active work in ministry done by the church on behalf of the poor. Taking care of the poor was a central pillar in the doctrine of the church. At times it became questionable whether it was consistently central to the practice of the church. However, there is clear evidence that during this period, mercy ministry was viewed as essential to being Christian.

Reformation

For the purposes of this discussion, the Reformation Era runs from 1517 when Luther posted his 95 theses on the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral to about the end of the 30 Years war. During this time, theological strife was rampant and mixed with political issues as princes and kings were encouraged to engage in wars under religious guise but often for political reasons. This was also a period which saw the rise of the nation-state and a market economy.

 The theological thrust of the Reformation was the recovery of the gospel. In the view of Luther, the gospel had been so misrepresented by the Roman Catholic Church that radical reformation of the church practices and doctrines were required. In that time, though, everyone was “Christian” in the sense that all Europeans were brought into the church through infant baptism. Thus there were few questions about doing good to Christians vs. non-Christians. At the same time, Luther’s 95 Theses were largely driven by a desire to restore just dealings in Europe. Two of the injustices wrapped up in the sale of indulgences were the redirection of economic resources to Rome for improper purposes and the offer of forgiveness without repentance. Theses 43–46 read:

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means squander it on pardons.

 Calvin, too, held mercy ministry as a central role of the Christian. These comments come from his treatise on the Ten Commandments, explaining the application of the Eighth Commandment: 

“The purport is, that injustice being an abomination to God, we must render to every man his due. . . . For we must consider, that what each individual possesses has not fallen to him by chance, but by the distribution of the sovereign Lord of all, that no one can pervert his means to bad purposes without committing a fraud on a divine dispensation. ”

Calvin was urging the righteous use of money, which is a form of mercy ministry. In his Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 8, Calvin explains that doing good to neighbors is an essential part of true piety: 

“Because a man does not easily maintain love in all respects unless he earnestly hears God, here is proof also of his piety. Besides, since the Lord well knows, and also attests through his prophets, that no benefit can come from us to him, he does not confine our duties to himself, but he exercises us “in good works toward our neighbor.” The apostle consequently has good reason to place the whole perfection of the saints in love. Elsewhere he quite rightly calls it the “fulfillment of the law,” adding that “he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.””

 More could be said about the function of the external works of righteousness in the life of the Christian, but from these evidences it is clear that the Reformers held mercy ministry as a central function of Christians.