1. Is it hard to concentrate when reading the Bible off your cell phone or book reader? You know that you are one click away from checking email, surfing the Internet, returning a text, or bombing angry birds. Do these temptations distract you from focusing deeply on the biblical text?  Do you notice a difference when you read the Bible in a physical book and when you read it on your digital device?

2. Is it hard to remember that you are reading God’s revelation when you are reading it on the same screen that you check email, surf the Internet, return texts, and bomb angry birds? In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman observed that television mashes everything together into its single genre, so that a news report on a devastating earthquake is immediately followed by a lighthearted advertisement for laundry soap. Postman thought that such trivial ads lessened our sensitivity to the serious news, and soon we begin to see television newscasts as yet another form of entertainment. I can guess what he might say about the many more things we do with our screens now.

I am not suggesting that there is no place for reading the Bible off a computer or phone screen. I have typed many Scripture passages onto this blog, which I assume were read from a screen. But I do think there is a danger in making our cell phone or Kindle the main way we read the Bible. There are children today who will grow up without ever owning a tangible, bound copy of the Word of God. The only Bible they will ever know will exist in cyberspace, fighting for a place among their other apps. Will these children have a difficult time believing that they are reading the eternal, unchanging Word of God? Will the digital age—and the many useful downloadable Bibles that it produces—inadvertently undermine our understanding of the authority of Scripture?

Aslan’s talk addressed the “Five Myths of the Arab Spring” (the democratic movement that began in Tunisia and toppled governments in Egypt and Libya as it spread across the Middle East). Here are his five myths:

1. The Arab Spring was a surprise. Aslan said that anyone who was paying attention could have seen this coming. Social media broke the monopoly that the government had on communication, and now the kids could communicate directly with each other. He meant to say kids, as half of everyone in the Arab World is under the age of 25.

2. The Arab Spring isn’t about democracy but only about economics—the young people merely want the good life that everyone else has. Aslan said that survey after survey in these countries find that the people want democracy more than anything else. Islam is not incompatible with democracy, for the six largest Muslim countries are democracies and one third of all Muslims live in democratic states.

3. The Arab Spring is being hijacked by radical Islam, which is strangling the rise of democracy. Aslan said that for a long time the U.S. was blackmailed by Arab dictators such as Mubarek. We propped up their regimes because we feared that democracy would fuel the rise of radical Islam. What we got for our money was the rise of radical Islam, for the Arab people blamed us for not having a voice.

Aslan conceded that the Muslim Brotherhood will rise to power in Egypt’s initial elections, for this oppressed group under Mubarek’s regime has curried favor with the people by caring for the poor. He suggested that their rise to power will be a good thing, for political participation always moderates radicalism. Governing requires compromise, forming alliances, and a focus on sweeping the streets. Who has time to make bombs? Aslan said that it’s time to give the Muslim Brotherhood their shot, and see if they can succeed. If they do, then good for them. If they don’t, then they will be seen as losers.

4. The Arab Spring is bad for Israel. Aslan said that it will be difficult for Israel in the short-term, but their weakened hand will force them to negotiate with the Palestinians, which will ultimately turn out to their benefit. In ten years there will be more Palestinians than Israelis living within the borders of Israel, so Israel will have to decide if she wants to be an Israeli state or a democracy.

5. The Arab Spring is bad for America. Aslan said that it will be difficult for us in the short-term, as it is easier to control a dictator than to negotiate with a democratic government (note how democratic Turkey voted to not allow the U.S. to invade Iraq from its land). But the Arab Spring will ultimately defeat the ideas that fuel Al Qaida, for young Muslims will realize that they have hope for an improved life. Votes work better than guns.

During the Q and A, a man from Turkey said that he disagreed with much of what Aslan said. For example, his friends in Turkey said that they would be fired from their government posts if they refused to attend the Mosque each Friday. So how democratic and free is Turkey?

Aslan replied that what the man said was entirely untrue, for such a thing would not happen in modern Turkey. I wondered how Aslan could know this, and it made me think that he may be underestimating the power of religion in the region. For example, The Muslim Brotherhood Creed states, “I believe the Muslim has the responsibility to work to revive the glory of Islam, in promoting the revival of its peoples, in restoring its legislation. I believe that the banner of Islam should dominate humanity, and that the task of each Muslim consists of educating the world according to the rules of Islam; I commit myself to fight as long as I live to fulfill this mission, and to sacrifice all I possess to it.”

This stated mission makes me less sanguine than Aslan for the inevitable rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. I have less faith in democracy than he seems to possess, but I really hope he is right.

Here are five things I’ve learned:

1. Texting has a proud and distinguished history. It began in Finland, when frightened boys figured out how to use the keypads on their Nokia phones to ask girls out. They passed their skill on to their parents, who decided they liked the control and concealment that came with texting.

This week I heard of a young woman who was talking with a friend on her phone. The conversation became too emotional, so they decided to hang up and text each other. When asked why she would do such a thing, the woman replied that she didn’t want the other person to hear her cry. Maybe our technology is not connecting us as much as we think?

2. The Internet is giving us Attention Deficit Disorder. The neurons in our brains are constantly reconnecting and creating new pathways, and so our brains adapt to whatever thinking style we are currently using. The Internet encourages rapid, shallow thoughts that skim along the surface of pictures and text (mostly pictures). The more we surf the web the more difficult it is for our brains to slow down and think deeply in a single direction.

Don’t believe it? How long has it been since you’ve read an entire book? Why don’t you sit down and read one now? It’s harder than it used to be, isn’t it? We are becoming skimmers rather than readers.

3. Google encourages distraction rather than reflection. This company makes money every time we click on one of their ads, so they have a vested interested in keeping our mouses moving. The last thing they want is for you to bog down and immerse yourself in a single story.

Stand up to their manipulation by reading the rest of this blog post, slowly and with deep thought (he said, manipulatively).

4. The Internet is destroying our memories. The first step to memory formation is attentiveness. We focus on a certain event, which then enables that experience to transition from our short-term to long-term memory. So what happens to people who lose their ability to focus? They lose the ability to develop long-term memories. There is a third thing too, but I can’t remember what it is. Oops.

5. The Internet never forgets. Every click you’ve ever made is stored somewhere, so either be careful what sites you visit or make sure you never become famous—because your dirty laundry could be dredged for all to see. Of course, we’re all going to stand before God someday, so we already have the best reason to be careful, whether or not we’re planning on becoming famous.

6. I learned lots of other things, but if these books are right, then few of you have read this far anyway, and if you have, you’re itching for a break. So I’ll save the rest for another short post.

Turkle made several interesting points which I share below (to better process my own notes and in case they spark something in you). These points are probably spelled out further in her book, Alone Together.

1. Technology enables us to become distracted from the things we say we care about. We are so busy communicating that we fail to connect with others. We are so busy communicating that we fail to think.

2. Technology dials down human contact. People tend to prefer email or texts rather than phone calls because the former enables us to hide from each other. We fear that we may share too much in the immediacy of a phone call. So besides the convenience of wanting to not be interrupted and to respond on our own schedule, we like online communication because we can share only the parts we want.

3. Because technology pressures us to respond immediately, we begin to ask each other simpler questions that can be answered easily. And so technology tends to dumb down our conversations.

4. Technology encourages the sensibility where the validation of a feeling supports the establishment of a feeling. It’s almost as if we don’t really feel our feeling until our friends validate it. Turkle called his phenomonen, “I share, therefore I am.” We behave like adolescents who use others to validate and so establish our feelings.

5. We must teach our children to be alone, or they will only ever know how to be lonely.

6. The schools of the future will not focus so much on collaboration but on teaching students how to be alone. We are too afraid of solitude, but this is the very thing we need for creativity. Teachers must show students how to slow things down, to tolerate the anxiety of being left with their own company long enough to have new thoughts. It’s not good for students to always reach out and touch each other—they need to learn how to work alone.

7. People who must constantly check their phone for new messages say that their mobile device feels like a place of hope. They desperately want the message they find there to make their lives interesting.

[My aside:  this reminds me of what the medieval Christians called sloth. Sloth (acedia) is the sin of distraction, which is rooted in despair. Is it a coincidence that our Age of Distraction is also an Age of Despair?]

8. The normal solution for an addiction is to quit cold turkey. But technology addicts realize that will never happen, as they need their technology to get by in the world. So they feel a sense of hopelessness about ever kicking their addiction.

9. We’re not in trouble because we invented a new technology, we’re in trouble because we unreflectively threw ourselves into the new technology.

10. The Internet never forgets. Delete and Erase are only metaphorical on the Web. Whatever you type or whatever sites you visit will be on your permanent record. And so we become the instruments of our own surveillance.

11. Mark Zuckerberg declared that privacy is no longer a relevant social norm. But what is intimacy and democracy without privacy? Can you be intimate with someone without privacy? Can you have a genuine democracy if individuals lack a zone of privacy—a place where they are allowed to have their own thoughts?

       Fred Meijer was one of the wealthiest men in the world. His Meijer stores were the first to combine groceries and general merchandise under one roof, and when he died his $5 billion fortune made him the 60^th richest person in the United States. Fred also was one of the kindest. He wore his wealth lightly, often dropping by his stores to shake hands with customers, pass out coupons for free ice cream, and even bag a few groceries.

        His generous spirit made the news from his funeral that much harder to take. Fred’s Christian friends had long worried that he didn’t know Jesus, but the progressive preacher at his funeral pretended that didn’t matter. “How do you inherit eternal life?”, the pastor asked the mourners, “By being a good neighbor, like Fred was.” I pray that Fred believed better than this, for that is a tragically wrong answer.

        A young ruler once asked Jesus the same question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” When the man affirmed that he had been a good neighbor by keeping the second table of the Ten Commandments, Jesus replied that he hadn’t done enough. “Go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor…Then come, follow me.” The man sorrowfully concluded the price was too high, and he went away shaking his head (Mark 10:17-22).

        The man was not necessarily being materialistic. In his Middle Eastern society, houses and lands were owned by families rather than lone individuals. He was responsible for a large chunk of his family’s estate, and to give it away would be an act of betrayal. It was, as Jesus said, impossible.

        But not with God. How do you inherit eternal life? Put the whole world—family, friends, money, sex, and chocolate—on one side and nothing but Jesus on the other. Which do you choose?

Here’s a sign that you’re not keeping up with the Christmas season:  last night I received a call from one of my students who wondered why our class didn’t show up. I told him that the semester was over—don’t you remember taking the final exam last week? I felt sorry for him, as he’s obviously a busy pastor with way too much on his plate. I didn’t have the heart to ask if he had completed the reading for last night’s class.

I am excited to teach Apologetics again this January, especially because I’m working up a new proof for God’s existence. In addition to the standard moral, ontological, cosmological, and teleiological proofs, I think there may be room for a Tebowological argument for God. I’m still working out the kinks—I’ve already inserted a Brady Rule (all bets are off when facing Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers, or Drew Brees)—and I realize it’s a fairly localized proof (more convincing the closer you get to the Rockies).

I also have to contend with the fact that even Tebow acknowledges that God doesn’t really care who wins his games—to which I reply that I assume Tim is praying for something when he’s Tebowing during a 60 yard field goal attempt. The largest hurdle though, is that with his beard, Tebow looks a lot like Goliath in my children’s book of Bible stories. I can’t prove it, but that may have something to do with his costly fumble on Sunday.

There will always be Humean cynics who will say that, if Tebow’s miraculous success counts for God, then why doesn’t the mediocre play of Colt McCoy, an equally fervent evangelical, not count against God? That one is easy. McCoy plays for the Browns, who along with the entire sports town of Cleveland was cursed by God before I was born. Even our Messiah figure quit on us and went to South Beach.

The beauty of the Tebow argument—as I imagine it—is that it will clearly and immediately show you who you’re dealing with. The argument will either find receptive hearts or it will meet with angry denunciation. There will be no middle ground. Just what Romans 1 says we should expect when bearing witness.

So if Tebow shaves his beard, and especially if he keeps on winning, expect a revival to break out in Colorado Springs. The Christian infrastructure is already in place.

Update:  Andy Naselli sent me this link to a miked-up Tim Tebow during the Bears game. It’s great footage of a fine Christian man. It also explains why the one sentence you never want to hear in church is, “Before Pastor Johnson brings this morning’s message, special music from Tim Tebow.”

Update:  Doug Wilson has written a powerful essay on his friendship with Hitchens.

I noticed a shift in the last few years, as Alvin Plantinga, the informal leader of Reformed Epistemology, began giving lectures that asserted that atheism is inherently irrational. His transition to offense now seems complete, as even the N.Y. Times acknowledges. I am excited to read Plantinga’s book, and I expect to find that he will make many of the same arguments that Van Til made, but with more tightly reasoned, analytical arguments. I will also remember to thank God for how much the church has learned from the Dutch.