the sauce

God, Google and the Gospel

dcrofts — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:15:16 +0000

Today I had the privilege (and pleasure) of seeing one of my essays from this year abridged and published in Oak Hill‘s Commentary magazine. It’s a reflection on the cultural significance of the Google search engine from a Christian perspective. I’ve reproduced the text below for anyone who’s interested…

—

In just 10 years, Google has become one of the most recognisable brands on the planet. It is so identified with the task of internet searching that the Oxford English Dictionary has added the verb ‘to Google,’ meaning ‘to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet,’ to its lexicon.

John Battelle, one of the founders of Wired magazine, eulogises about Google thus: ‘Every day, millions upon millions of people lean forward into their computer screens and pour their wants, fears and intentions into the simple colors and brilliant white background of Google.com.’

But there have been words of caution and criticism amongst the adulation. Educators such as Tara Brabazon have lamented the impact of Google on the research abilities of university students, claiming that ‘the popularity of Google is facilitating laziness, poor scholarship and compliant thinking.’

If everything can be searched, the implication is that everything can be known. Google is therefore profoundly humanistic. Just as, given long enough, Google’s engineers will inevitably develop the perfect search engine, there is a conviction that, given the right search criteria, the Google user will be able to find any information and answer any question. Google operates a modernist assumption that the truth is out there – you just need the right tool to help you find it.

Google thereby propagates a myth of human omniscience – rather than being content to organise* God’s creation, Google deceieves us into believing we can know it exhaustively.

God’s rebuke to Job in chapters 38-41 of the book of Job is therefore instructive. God’s relentless questioning puts Job in his place as a finite creature before an infinite creator. This sense of perspective is precisely the truth Google trains us to suppress, blurring the creator-creature distinction and elevating man to God’s level. Instead, like the Psalmist, we must recognise there is ‘knowledge too wonderful for me’ (Ps 139:6).

By the sheer volume of information it places at our fingertips, Google also suppresses the truth by ensuring it gets lost in background noise. As well as things we are not meant to know, the Bible is clear there are things that it is vital for us to know: how to be ‘wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus’ (2 Timothy 3:15). Google also blurs the truth-trivia distinction by removing this biblical hierarchy.

Ultimately, Google can either function as an idol or act as a conduit to other idols. Tim Keller defines an idol as ‘something we look to for things that only God can give,’ which for Google might include knowledge, guidance and even (by Googline one’s own name) self-affirmation. The distance from oracle to idol is short and easily crossed.

Google is a remarkable and genuinely useful work of human innovation, but we must be wary of its myths concerning our place and purpose in the universe. The reality is that we are far more the searched than we are the searchers (Ps 139:1). And the glorious prospect of the gospel is that we are not just the searched, but the searched for (Luke 15).

*A key verb in Google’s mission statement: ‘To organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’

—

If you liked that, I’m happy to share the full essay with you, in which the argument is more fully developed (and heavily footnoted…) You might also be interested in a sermon I preached on the subject last year – although it will probably be evident that my thinking has been refined a bit since I delivered it.

The Broadcast Battle

dcrofts — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:09:52 +0000

As a nation struggles to comprehend England’s shambolic display against Algeria, I thought I’d offer a bit of distraction. While the focus is (justifiably) directed at the on-pitch competition, there’s an important contest taking place off-pitch: the quadrennial battle between the BBC and ITV World Cup coverage. Both broadcasters have assembled expert teams…now it’s time to ask “Who has the edge?”

Goalkeeper

A tricky area for both sides, this, as neither has a recognised keeper in their squad. My selection sees the BBC opt for a wildly-out-of-position Jurgen Klinsmann, whose propensity for diving should at least boost his shot-stopping capability and come in handy in a penalty shootout.

ITV, meanwhile, select post-match entertainment host James Corden, who spatially fills the largest percentage of the goal, and may also keep opposing strikers at a distance as they attempt to steer clear of his desperate attempts at humour.

THE EDGE? BBC

Defence

The BBC field a back four consisting of Lee Dixon at right back, Alan Hansen and Mick McCarthy as no-nonsense (well, a bit of nonsense in the case of McCarthy’s co-commentary) centre-backs, and Mark Lawrenson forced to fill the gap at left back, where his misjudged puns will hopefully not cause too much damage. A strong, experienced unit this, with McCarthy’s mumbling Yorkshireisms the only weakness of note.

ITV, meanwhile, show their international diversity with Gareth Southgate (Eng) dropping into right back, Marcel Desailly (Fra) and Chris Coleman (Wal) in the centre, and the loquacious Jim Beglin (Ire) on the left. In the final analysis, Beglin proves to be even more annoying than Lawrenson, and Southgate’s taste in shirts leaves the right side dangerously exposed.

THE EDGE? BBC

Midfield

A lack of squad depth forces the BBC to push Martin Keown into a holding midfield role, alongside the evergreen Clarence Seedorf, with the ever-ginger Gordon Strachan left to conjure up some attacking opportunities. Despite Seedorf’s international pedigree and command of several languages, the fact that Scottish is not one of them could hamper the communication with Strachan.

ITV have a comparative wealth of options, selecting Patrick Viera and Edgar Davids to provide grit and guile respectively in the centre, with the predictable and cliche-prone Andy Townsend on the left, and the disgraced Robbie Earle on the right, specially reinstated for the purposes of this blog entry… Still, that central partnership should provide enough quality to overpower the BBC’s three-man midfield.

THE EDGE? ITV

Attack

The BBC put their hopes in stalwarts – nay, legends – Gary Lineker and Alan Shearer, boasting 78 international goals between them. A prolific strike force, bolstered by the recent addition of the largely incomprehensible Emmanuel Adebayor (provided he remembers to turn off his mobile phone), completing an attacking 4-3-3 formation.

ITV turn to – who else? – Kevin Keegan, banking on a triumph of patriotism over tactical acumen. However, in a surprise selection that speaks volumes of ITV’s lack of cover at this key position, big-money transfer Adrian Chiles is pulled out of the studio to complete the strike force.

THE EDGE? BBC

Manager

The Beeb have Premier League Manager of the Year Roy Hodgson, whose early appearances as a pundit in this World Cup have been marked by astute analysis and a startling ability to correctly pronounce foreign players’ names.

ITV’s only managerial candidates are already spoken for, so it’s a toss-up between Southgate, Coleman and Keegan for player-manager. I’m going to plump for Keegan as he’s the only one with (albeit disastrous) international experience.

THE EDGE? BBC

So there we have it – the BBC team have the clear edge in 4 out of 5 categories. Let’s hope the difference proves crucial in improving England’s fortunes when Wednesday’s showdown with Slovenia is on BBC1…

For more pundit-related humour, check out Barney Ronay’s blog.

Latest soundbites…

dcrofts — Thu, 27 May 2010 22:27:18 +0000

Anyone who knows me knows I love a good soundbite. Here are a couple of my recent faves that have got me thinking – both from a sermon we had in chapel a couple of weeks ago that challenged us to a more “visceral” Christianity:

“What you celebrate, you propagate.”

What do we celebrate in our churches and in our individual Christian lives? What are the things we prize, the things that we rejoice to see? Slickly produced church services? Strict doctrinal orthodoxy? Numerical growth? Or the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

The church exists to propagate the gospel. So let’s do a better job of celebrating it! After all, we have ample reason: “We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” (Romans 5:11)

Here’s soundbite number 2 – even better than the first one:

“People don’t care how much you know. They want to know how much you care.”

…that’s a hard mindset to have at a theological college, but it’s a helpful reminder of what matters in the real world. Sure, I’ve got the opportunity to spend three years (only two and a bit left now!) working on my knowing – but that’s entirely useless if I don’t work on my caring…

Reading through Mark’s gospel by way of revision this morning, I was struck by the way Jesus embodies that principle in his ministry. He knows more than anyone – he’s God – and yet he doesn’t bring people to put their faith in him by flaunting his knowledge. He does so by demonstrating his care, supremely through his death on the cross.

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

Album Review: ‘Hospice’ (The Antlers)

dcrofts — Thu, 27 May 2010 22:24:48 +0000

For the last three months or so I’ve been listening almost obsessively to Hospice by The Antlers and I keep meaning to blog about it – if only to vent my feelings for how amazing it is. This is an amazing album. Amazing. (There – I’ve vented.)

Released last year, Hospice tells the story of a man losing a loved one to cancer. Unsurprisingly therefore, it isn’t exactly a cheery listen. In fact, I think it’s one of the bleakest records I’ve ever heard – but unquestionably one of the most beautiful, powerful and affecting. Virtually every track contains moments that will have the hair on the back of your neck standing on end. In the right set of circumstances (dark room, late night, volume up), Hospice will make you weep.

Musically it’s an album of great contrasts: light and dark, loud and quiet, songs that have sparse beginnings and build to room-filling crescendos. ‘Kettering’ – in my opinion the standout track – starts with a delicate, pulsating piano but fills out to reflect the growing emotional turmoil. The up-tempo ‘Bear’ and ‘Two’ are almost jaunty, but for their sombre subject matter. ‘Atrophy’ and ‘Thirteen’ perfectly evoke the frightening eeriness of deserted hospital corridors. The variety of instruments in play is impressive, most of them wielded by frontman Peter Silberman, whose fragile falsetto voice provides the perfect narrator for the tragic tale.

It’s rare in a culture as death-shy as ours to come across a record that so unflinchingly tackles death as its subject matter – and that pulls no punches in its reflection on just how scary the prospect is. We get to follow the protagonists through the entire emotional journey. The denial upon first hearing the news of terminal illness: “I didn’t believe them when they told me that there was no saving you” (‘Kettering’). The resulting social awkwardness and isolation: “None of our friends will come, they dodge our calls and they have for quite a while now” (‘Bear’). The alienation that seeps into the characters’ own relationship: “We’re terrified of one another, terrified of what that means” (‘Bear’). The sheer panic and desperation: “Pull me out…pull me out…can’t you stop all this from happening?” (‘Thirteen’) The strange relief when it is all coming to an end:

“In the middle of the night I was sleeping sitting up, when the doctor came to tell me ‘Enough is enough.’ He brought me out into the hall (I could have sworn it was haunted), and told me something that I didn’t know that I wanted to hear: That there was nothing that I could do to save you, the choir’s gonna sing, and this thing is gonna kill you.” (‘Two’)

Then follows the depression and emptiness of bereavement: “Now I’m sleeping next to mousetraps in a bed of all our clothes.” (‘Wake’) And finally, chillingly, the terror of a nightmare: “You return to me at night, just when I think I may have fallen asleep. Your face is up against mine, and I’m too terrified to sleep” (‘Epilogue’).

Powerful stuff indeed. If your musical taste is anything like mine (i.e. you like Radiohead, Arcade Fire etc.), then this comes highly recommended.

And it makes for particularly interesting listening as a Christian, believing that Jesus rose from the dead and definitively defeated that great enemy. Having a sure and certain hope in the face of death makes all the difference. There isn’t a shred of hope on Hospice. It’s unrelentingly doom-laden. For all its haunting beauty, its poetry and its musical merit, it offers no solution to the problem of death, nor does it even attempt to.

While I’ve been fixated on this album over the last couple of months, a couple of Christians with whom I briefly crossed lives have themselves died of cancer: Mark Ashton, vicar of the church I attended as a student (the first time around!), and Chris Pitt, who grew up in the same church as me in Stockport. Both men knew Jesus. And both have left behind powerful testimonies (click on their names) of the difference he makes in the face of death. Yes, there is great sorrow, particularly for their close friends and family. But, unlike on Hospice, sorrow does not give way to despair.

To shamelessly rip a quote out of its context, the Christian can face death with those famous words of Winston Churchill after the Battle of Britain:

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Delight yourself in the Lord!

dcrofts — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:51:34 +0000

No posts for weeks and then two come along at once…

Over Easter I’ve been re-reading John Piper’s classic Desiring God, and have been freshly challenged by the exhortation to not just believe in Jesus, but to delight myself in him – and to encourage others to do likewise in my preaching and teaching. I always love a bit of Piper – so here’s a sample:

Someone may ask, “If your aim is conversion, why don’t you just use the straightforward, biblical command, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved’? Why bring in this new terminology of Christian Hedonism?”

My answer has two parts. First, we are surrounded by unconverted people who think they do believe in Jesus [a scary thought, isn't it? But I think he's absolutely right]. Drunks on the street say they believe. Unmarried couples sleeping together say they believe. Elderly people who haven’t sought worship or fellowship for forty years say they believe. All kinds of lukewarm, world-loving church attenders say they believe. The world abounds with millions of unconverted people who say they believe in Jesus.

It does no good to tell these people to believe in the Lord Jesus. The phrase is empty. My responsibility as a preacher of the gospel and a teacher in the church is not to preserve and repeat cherished biblical sentences, but to pierce the heart with biblical truth.

This leads to the second part of my answer. There are other straightforward biblical commands besides “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” The reason for introducing the idea of Christian Hedonism is to force these commands to our attention. Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, “Believe in the Lord,” but, “Delight yourself in the Lord”?

More good news: loads of Piper’s books (including Desiring God) are now freely available to read online or download from http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/

Happy browsing…