A Little Bit of Conviction
Thanks to Theron Mathis for sending this my way.
Just A Little Bit of Attention
After I had been there a few minutes, a middle-class-looking family walked in: a little boy who looked to be about four years of age, his mother and father, and a set of grandparents. After they were seated and looking at their menus, the little boy spoke up, "Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair."
No response. The adults in this family weren't talking really; they were just looking at their menus.
"Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair," he said again.
Once more the mother never looked up, and no one said anything.
"Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair."
"Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair."
"Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. Look, Mommy. These are chairs like my teacher's chair. "
He said it at least that many times. Finally I had had enough. I was frustrated not with the little boy, but with his mother and the rest of this family that were ignoring him for no good reason. So, I turned my chair around to face him, and in the nicest voice I could muster, I looked in his direction and said, "Hey!" in a voice perhaps slightly louder than I intended.
Now I had everyone's attention: the little boy's, his family's and just about every other patron in the place.
Without waiting for the little fellow to respond, I asked, "Are these chairs just like your teacher's chair?"
His face formed into a great big grin, and nodding his head, he said, "Uh-huh!"
And that was it. The constant repetitive phrase was finished. All he had needed was a bit of acknowledgement, just a little bit of attention. I could tell that everyone was still staring at me, but I only turned to the mother to whom I smiled, raised my eyebrows, and then proceeded to turn around to my plate and continue eating.
I know I'm not a parent yet, and I don't want to come across as someone who thinks he can necessarily do it better, BUT I know I want to do it better than them.
Singular They Sighting: Oxford American Dictionaries
I nearly always keep this application open when I am writing or studying to double-check the meaning of a word or look for a synonym. I was looking for another word that meant "know-it-all" for my Wycliffe post when I unexpectedly stumbled across the use of a singular they in the phrase's definition:
Wikipedia Watch: Follow-Up to the Michael Scott Endorsement
Office' fans flock to edit Wikipedia
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet WriterWed Apr 11, 5:37 PM ET
In the NBC series "The Office," the boss Michael Scott turned to Wikipedia for tips on fending off an employee's request for a pay raise. Viewers quickly flocked to the online encyclopedia and added their take to its entry on negotiations.
Administrators at Wikipedia had to limit editing of the entry, most recently late Tuesday, placing it in "semi-protection" mode. That meant users couldn't make changes anonymously or from accounts fewer than four days old — to discourage those drawn to the site specifically because of the broadcast.
The site imposed similar restrictions on the entry twice before, only to see vandalism continue after they were lifted.
Wikipedia is a collaborative reference site where anyone can add, change or even delete entries, regardless of expertise. The thinking is that the collective wisdom results in a better product overall, and members of the community can watch for any vandalism and reverse it.
In the case of the "negotiation" entry, viewers quickly added phony tips in response to clueless advice from Scott, played by Steve Carell, in last week's episode.
One edit simply replaced the entry with a statement praising the television program. That was followed by the insertion of Scott's tips for getting the upper hand, including "suddenly changing the location" and "refusing to talk first."
Users made more than 100 changes, including those to reverse the vandalism, before the site imposed the latest restrictions on revisions.
Wikipedia does face vandalism from time to time as a result of high-profile mentions.
Fans of Stephen Colbert's Comedy Central show "The Colbert Report" flocked to Wikipedia to alter articles on elephants after he said on the program, "all we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true — for instance, that Africa has more elephants today than it did 10 years ago."
Changes aren't always noticed and fixed immediately.
In late 2005, prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.
The last paragraph says it all. And people wonder why I don't take the Wikipedia seriously?
Wikipedia Watch: The Michael Scott Endorsement
Discussion Topic: Does the Title of the New NBC Improv Show, Thank God You're Here, Take the Lord's Name in Vain?
Here are a few thoughts I have on this kind of subject, and I would appreciate your discussion in the comments.
(1) Contrary to what is often taught from pulpits, the command "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name" (Ex 20:7 TNIV), is about more than mere swearing. What does it mean to misuse the Lord's name? Well, the Hebrew word, נָסָא/nasah, translated as "misuse" in the NIV/TNIV/NLT or "take...in vain" in many Tyndale tradition translations is often defined as to lift, carry, take. This is a word that implies action. I once heard it described as having the imagery of carrying a banner or flag into battle--it denotes belonging, allegiance. To carry the name of the Lord in vain can even mean to claim that one belongs to the God of the Bible and then live as if that were not true. So certainly the commandment is against more than simply referring to God without any real intent of meaning, but it would also include this as well.
(2) The use of the term "God" with meaningless intent is (sadly) part of common speech, often even among Christians. Personally, I believe I am standing on solid biblical ground in suggesting that believers should not use it as such. The counter claim could be made that "God" is not actually God's name. This is true, but "God" is used interchangeably not only in our speech, but even in the Bible with the divine name. Certain religious Jews will not even write the generic word, but will offer something such as "G-d."
(3) I can't imagine that this title would have been used in a television show a generation ago. I can still remember hearing the word "God" beeped out of discussions on television many years ago.
(4) What is the proper Christian response toward culture? Granted, we cannot expect non-believers to act or speak like believers. Do we even have any business questioning what television networks choose to call a show? Well, I think we do because I'm certain that NBC would want as many people as possible to watch. NBC doesn't look at this as a show aimed at non-Christians, but a show aimed at as many viewers as will tune in. Therefore, Christians, too, are part of the target audience. There may be a need at least to call the network into question regarding the name of the show. I don't really think they will change it, as it is an American version of an overseas show by the same name. But it might be a good idea to call their attention to such things, that in my opinion, are offensive--even if they don't understand why.
These are my thoughts. I'm not calling for a boycott or anything of that nature. I am asking for feedback to know what you think. Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Should, at the very least, concerned Christians (and religious Jews) make their concerns known to NBC?
Let me know what you think.
Wikipedia Watch: Editor Who Posed As Professor Is Kentucky Dropout
Above Cartoon by Peter Steiner. The New Yorker, July 5, 1993 issue (Vol.69, no. 20) page 61
From today's Courier Journal (Louisville, Kentucky):
He touted himself as a tenured professor with doctorates in theology and canon law.
But the volunteer editor and fact checker for the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia turned out to be a 24-year-old dropout from Centre College and Lexington Community College.
In a long feature last July, The New Yorker described how Ryan Jordan -- identified online and in the magazine article as Essjay -- was renowned for rooting out errors and obscenity from Wikipedia, whose entries are contributed and corrected by readers and volunteer editors.
Last week, however, after Jordan's credentials were exposed as fictitious, the magazine ran a correction -- and yesterday Jordan, who had written or edited about 16,000 entries, resigned.
Wikipedia has said no questions have been raised about the accuracy of his work.
Critics of Wikipedia said the deception was fitting, given the site's history of errors that include reporting that the prime minister of Norway was a pedophile.
Devoted contributors, including Louisville computer programmer Steve Magruder, who has written many entries about the city, said they feared Essjay's deceptions could damage the encyclopedia's credibility. [Rick chuckles..."You think?"]
Another Wikipedian, as they call themselves, denounced Jordan last week on the site, saying: "I hope you understand how you are –––– all over the thousands of people who have made a real effort to turn Wikipedia into a credible source."
Responding on his Wikipedia page, Jordan initially defended his deceptions by saying he had to protect himself from online stalkers. He told The New Yorker he routinely got death threats from people he banned from the site.
Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, also said at first on the site that he had no problem with Jordan's invented persona.
But yesterday, Wales asked for Jordan's resignation.
Read the entire article by Andrew Wolfson.
Ahh... the democratization of knowledge...
You know the issue is not that Jordan is a dropout. There are lots of intelligent, well-educated, successful folks who never finished college (consider Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and many of my friends and family). No, the fact that Jordan is a dropout only adds to the irony that he was impersonating a tenured professor with multiple doctorates. And this adds to the growing concern from myself and others regarding the use of the Wikipedia as a serious source of information (I think it's great for pop-culture references).
And even if Jordan's work was 100% accurate, his subterfuge calls everything he's written/edited on the Wikipedia into question. Someone will have to go behind him to verify his work. He was responsible for cleaning up the nonsense that any bozo can add/edit on the Wikipedia. But you'd think they at least check out the checkers!
I can guarantee this wouldn't happen at Britannica.com...
Wikipedia Watch: Not Satisfactory for College Papers
College: Wikipedia Not Source for Papers
Middlebury College in Vermont Says History Students May Not Cite Wikipedia As a Source
The Associated Press
MIDDLEBURY, Vt. - Middlebury College history students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia in preparing class papers.
The school's history department recently adopted a policy that says it's OK to consult the popular online encyclopedia, but that it can't be cited as an authoritative source by students.
The policy says, in part, "Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source."
History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
I know that I'm often hard on the "democritization/relativization of knowledge" inherent in the Wikipedia. But in reality, Middlebury College's decision isn't really so much a slam against the Wikipedia as a reaffirmation that encyclopedic references are not suitable for college papers. Any encyclopedia, whether the Wikipedia or Britannica are beginning sources for research that should point to other, more detailed information that would be appropriate in a college paper.
When I was in college, I would have ever used an encyclopedia as a reference, but I often I did stop there first in my research. Could it be that the internet has just made some students a bit lazy?
The Ethic of "It's Legal As Long As I Don't Get Caught"
I am completely appalled at what just happened to me! A first year teacher was being observed by a college professor and he heard me announce to a class of students in a health class that as we research we do not cut and paste information onto Word documents to use as presentation material, but that we take notes from what we read on the web. This professor turns to me and asks me why they can’t do that? I told him that breaks copyright laws and he says, “How would the person who wrote the information on the web know the student used their work?” How about that?
This, of course, is the ethic of "it's legal as long as I don't get caught." Plagiarism is a huge problem on college campuses these days (and even seminaries--I'm a grader at SBTS and know full well), and it makes one wonder what this particular professor would accept in his own classes.
I went through a period teaching my classes at IWU in which I had about three blatant plagiarism issues one right after another. I've since found that if I address the issue up front on the first day of class, both in discussion and in the syllabus that there's less likelihood of a student trying to steal work from an outside source. I explain to my students (without revealing my secrets) that I'm very good at spotting it, and by the time I speak to them about any incident, I will have already confirmed that it is indeed plagiarism with the dean and it will already be on their records. As I said, I don't have instances of plagiarism nearly as often now that I've taken a proactive approach. But with teachers like the one described in the quote above, encouraging the theft of others' work, it continues to be an uphill battle.
Uptight NFL Lawyers Want to Cancel Your Church's Super Bowl Party
For groups that want to host Super Bowl parties -- other than sports bars and businesses that normally show televised sports -- here are rules the NFL says must be followed:
• No admission fees (even to pay for snacks).
• Only one television (55 inches or smaller).
• No use of the words "Super Bowl" in promotional materials.
• No exhibition of the game in connection with events "that promote a message."
Source: NFL
As a kid I noticed that no one came to church on Super Bowl Sunday night. Well...maybe a small number. But in those days, it was a taboo topic to even suggest that we cancel Sunday night service for a sports event. However, I'm sure that even the ministerial staff secretly wished they could be home watching the game. I even remember the blank stares I received while on my first church staff around 1990, when I suggested we borrow or rent a number of large screen televisions (this was right before the advent of data projectors) and hold a Super Bowl party at church.
Regardless, such gatherings are common today. This Sunday night, churches all around the country will hook up a cable television signal to a data projector to show the big game. It's good family fun--an alternative to sports bars and a chance to see the game with friends and family on a screen larger than what most people have in their homes.
Even though churches have been doing this kind of thing for over a decade, one church, Fall Creek Baptist in Indianapolis, has received word from uptight NFL lawyers that showing the game on a screen larger than 55" and using the term "Super Bowl" in its promotion is a violation of copyright laws. And guess what? Your church may be the next target.
The irony in all this is that exception is made for sports bars, also a popular gathering place for Super Bowl parties.
From yesterday's Indianapolis Star:
NFL's lawyers sack church's game plan
By Robert King
robert.king@indystar.com
The thousands of churches across the country that want to host Super Bowl parties Sunday night had better not pull out big-screen TVs, or they could face the wrath of NFL attorneys.
The NFL is telling Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis that the church's plans to use a wall projector to show the game at a party for church members and guests would violate copyright laws.
NFL officials spotted a promotion of Fall Creek's "Super Bowl Bash" on the church Web site last week and sent pastor John D. Newland a letter -- via FedEx overnight -- demanding the party be canceled.
Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge partygoers a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions.
Newland told the NFL his church would not charge partygoers -- the fee had been intended only to pay for snacks -- and that it would drop the use of the forbidden words.
But the NFL wouldn't bite. It objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game on what effectively was a 12-foot-wide screen. It said the law limits the church to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.
The league even took exception to the church's plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.
"While this may be a noble message," NFL assistant counsel Rachel L. Margolies wrote in a follow-up e-mail, "we are consistent in refusing the use of our game broadcasts in connection with events that promote a message, no matter the content."
Given all the NFL's concerns, the church appears unlikely to host a Super Bowl party.
"The Colts and Tony Dungy are such good people -- and (team owner) Jim Irsay, too. We want to be supportive of our local team. I don't want to make our people choose between coming to church and watching the game. It is such a big event," Newland said.
"For us to have all our congregation huddled around a TV that is big enough only for 10 or 12 people to watch just makes little sense."
Newland said he expected there are churches across the country that are planning similar Super Bowl watch parties using big screens.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's longstanding policy is to ban "mass out-of-home viewing" of the Super Bowl. A major exception to the rule is made, however, for sports bars and other businesses that show televised sports as a part of their everyday operations.
"We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen."
Newland said his church won't break the law. But he sees a double standard at work when sports bars with giant screens can charge barstool rental fees and sell food, but his church can't offer a free event for families.
"It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," Newland said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down."
So Fall Creek Baptist Church has cancelled it's Super Bowl Party. Notice that in the statement released on the church's website, Pastor Newland even avoids mentioning the phrase, "Super Bowl," no doubt out of fear of more legal reprisal:
Fall Creek Baptist Church Family...
We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel our bash to view the Colts game this Sunday in a family friendly environment due to the fact that the NFL believes we would be in violation of the Copyright Act, because we had planned to show the game on a screen bigger than a 55 inch diagonal. We have appealed to their legal counsel and exhausted all options without success. We have been informed that the only exceptions to view the game are given to sports bars and restaurants. While we have argued that we only intend to provide a family oriented environment that will make no profit from the showing, the NFL claims that our event cannot proceed by law. Therefore, we have no choice but to challenge this in court or cancel the event. We choose to cancel the event. We deeply regret that we have been prohibited by the NFL from providing a family friendly environment for celebrating the Colts great season.
Pastor John
The gall of NFL lawyers shutting down a church Super Bowl party in the Colts' hometown!
I understand that copyright laws are designed so that owners of creative content get due compensation or that their creation is not used in unintended ways such as third parties making profit from the work. But really, how is a church's Super Bowl party a violation of this? If anything it's free promotion of the NFL and the Super Bowl by churches all across the country, and it probably draws some viewers who might not watch the game otherwise.
My prediction is that such overzealous legal bullying will backfire on the NFL in publicity nightmare. In fact I would suggest that you take the time to write a quick letter to the NFL and make your feelings known if you are as aggravated about this as I am. Send your thoughts to:
National Football
League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
As for my plans Sunday night? Well, I can't tell you that. I'm too
afraid of the NFL's Gestapo lawyers shutting us down.
UPDATE: Evidently, concerns over Nielsen ratings may actually be the source of the NFL lawyer's zealotry. Supposedly, if everyone is gathered at a church to watch the game, there's no way to track actual viewership. Lower numbers in the Nielsen ratings might make it more difficult for CBS to charge those exorbitant commercial time fees (this year's cost per commercial during the game is a whopping $2.6 million). But if this is the case, then why not block the sports bars as well? Seems like a huge double-standard to me, and worse, one that discriminates against the church.
Closed for Christmas (The Missing THIS LAMP Blog Entry)
In December of last year, the Lexington Herald Leader (the secular press, mind you) broke a story questioning why some churches had announced that they would not be open for services since Christmas fell on Sunday. Ben Witherington responded to it on his blog, and that's how I discovered it. Over the next few days leading up until Christmas, this issue would create quite a bit of controversy especially in evangelical discussions. However, This Lamp did not take part in the discussions because I pulled the article. Why?
Kathy and I had made the difficult decision to leave a church where we had been members, and I had been on staff on two separate occasions, for twelve years. This was a very difficult decision for us, but after moving to an entirely different county the year before, the commute--while not totally unmanageable--began to affect our participation, especially any mid-week activities. Further, after a number of years of reflection, I had grown increasingly convicted about the necessity of being part of a neighborhood church, not one that took me out of my local community (see my series "Rediscovering the Neighborhood Church" in the Site Index).
In leaving our former church for one literally within walking distance of our home, I tried very hard to emphasize to people at our former church that we were not leaving over disagreements or any of the normal, often petty reasons many people leave churches. I wanted to stay in good standing with our former church because I loved it and her members dearly.
So on December 5, 2005, a little while after posting the blog entry below which decried closing church doors on Sunday, I thought I should check the website of my former church. To my surprise, I saw that they, too, had planned to cancel Sunday services on Christmas. Out of propriety, because I didn't want anyone to think I was making a passive-aggressive stab at my former church, I pulled the post.
I believe enough time has passed that I can make the post again. By now I hope that no one has negative ideas about why we left our former church. And I hope that the issue of Christmas/Sunday services could be discussed in a time when it is not so much of a pressing issue. However, it is an important issue and will come up again in a mere five years. Rereading my self-censored post again, I realize that my mind has not changed a bit on this issue. We have five years to plan for Sunday Christmas services in 2011. Why not make this the most memorable celebration of a generation?
Does this make sense? Yes, the family is important, but do we promote the family OVER community worship on this Christian high day? What's next? No service on Easter because it also falls on the Lord's Day? The word Christmas itself comes from "Christ's Mass," one of the most significant worship days in the church's calendar.
I remember as a small child (probably about six-years-old) speculating that if Christmas ever fell on a Sunday (two holy days together), perhaps the Lord would return on that day. I didn't realize that this exact thing had already happened many times over the centuries. But even as a child, I saw the significance of these two days occurring together.
It makes you wonder if such a decision is best when even the secular media asks, "Why Do Churches Close on Christmas?" (Lexington Herald-Leader) [link is no longer active, but look here for reference to it]. As the church at large seems to be losing relevance in society, I'm not sure what kind of message this sends. Yes, we are promoting families. However, when a person becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ, he or she has a brand new family that goes beyond biology or legalities. It is a spiritual family--perhaps even more binding from an eternal perspective. What better time to spend with one's spiritual family than in worship on a Christmas Lord's day?
Further, Christmas and Easter have traditionally been the two holidays where church attendance increases. The people who don't come to church any other day of the year come on these two holidays. I have no doubt that in closing church doors on Christmas day, we will take some of these non-regular attenders by surprise.
I don't want to be legalistic here. And granted, this isn't as bad as R-Rated Bible calendars (see yesterday's blog); we are told in Col 2:16 not to judge one another regarding special days, but I do believe the decision to cancel services should be rethought. My greatest concern in church life presently is that of Christian community. As I've been reflecting on this for a long while now, community will probably be an ongoing theme in my blogs over 2006. In the changing nature of today's society, I believe that a primary gift the church can give the world today is that of a stable and nurturing community. Christmas on the Lord's Day should therefore be an extraordinarily special day of community and celebration.
Here's my suggestion for the future. Christmas falls on Sunday only about once every decade or so (no, it's not seven; leap year complicates things). Every few years when these two days combine, why not have a celebration commemorating Christ's birth that is extra special. Define that however you want, short of canceling services altogether. This special day can be planned well in advance and anticipated in excitement as it draws near.
There's nothing anti-family about spending Christmas with both family and church community. Ideally, these will be one and the same anyway. If not, the day has 24 hours like every other day and lots of opportunities for varied means to celebrate the Reason we set aside this very important high holy day.
Wiki-FoxTrot
Follow-Up to the Mississippi Church Racial Controversy
First, The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal pulled the story from their website late yesterday. This Lamp reader (and my former student!) Josh Clark took it upon himself to contact the newspaper to inquire why the story was no longer online. Here is the response he received:
It's interesting that the paper would claim that the story only "appeared for a few minutes on our site." I first discovered the story around 2 PM Thursday on the Christianity Today Weblog. It was certainly still online when I posted the story 13 hours later here on my blog. I was unaware the story had been pulled until This Lamp reader Rae Whitlock noted in the comments of yesterday's post that the link was broken. I'm not exactly sure how long the story was on the Daily Journal's website, but I know that it was there for at least 24 hours. However, considering the original article is dated August 19, I want to assume that it may have been online for the better part of an entire week.The article linked to was not supposed to be for publication. It appeared for a few minutes on our site, but it never appeared in print. The writer and her editor decided not to publish the story for lack of comments from the church, but they failed to inform us on the online side it had been killed. The reporter has asked Christianity Today's web site to pull the segment about her story, but was told it could not do it until this weekend.
A more thorough version of the story will be published in Saturday's Daily Journal.
Second, now the story is back up in an expanded version at the original link (see "Pastor Claims Church Voted to Reject Black Membership, Resigns"). Regarding the content, the only piece of new information is an official denial from the church that the vote ever took place. This turn of events is not overly surprising as denial is usually the first response to accusation. And with the pastor gone, it becomes a "your word against ours" conflict. Pardon my bent for mischief, but the church's denial could easily be tested if a large group of the community's non-white population were to show up as visitors to tomorrow's service. Such a move might be a good way to peacefully protest the church's racial attitudes anyway.
Assuming that this story is true (I've yet to see anything to really suggest that it is not, and this is confirmed by the Daily Journal's attempt to handle it delicately), I hope that the central figure in this--the 12-year-old boy, Joe--is not forgotten.
I remember my own joy at becoming a follower of Christ. Everyone shook my hand; there were smiles and pats on my back. Even though I was a child, I felt like I had made a very grownup decision. My public profession of faith was followed by a class in church beliefs and then my baptism. I look back at that experience with fond memories. It was a very positive and life-changing experience.
But then I think of Joe. Years from now, will he look back at the time when he "accepted Jesus into his heart" (a quote from the original DJ article) with fondness or bitterness? I can't imagine that Joe would have any means to separate his decision to follow Christ from the chain of events that followed soon afterward.
“But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."
(Mark 9:42 HCSB)
As tragic as the situation is, if years from now Joe is tempted to turn his back on his decision to follow Christ, I hope he will remember the other two individuals (and their families) who sacrificed their church membership with him. It can certainly be no small thing that a police officer--a leader and authority figure in the community--and more significantly, the pastor of the church himself chose to be excluded with Joe and his family rather than remain with a group whose actions demonstrated they were not worthy of the name, Christian.
As for Fellowship Baptist Church, God is not through with them yet...one way or another. A day will come when they have to answer for their actions
“Behold, I am going to deal at that time
With all your oppressors,
I will save the lame
And gather the outcast,
And I will turn their shame into praise and renown
In all the earth.”
(Zephaniah 3:19 NASB)
Final note (for now): History on the internet can be a tricky thing and too easily facts can be revised. Therefore I am attaching below two separate PDF files. The first contains the original story placed online by The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal and the second document contains the revised article posted today. Here are the two files: djournal.20080819 and djournal.20080826.
Unbelievable in 2006: Baptist Church in Mississippi Votes Out 12-Year-Old Over RACE
In July the ironically named Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo, Mississippi, held revival services. During those revival services, 12-year-old Joe, a boy of biracial descent "accepted Jesus into his heart." On August 6, at the church's business meeting, the all-white congregation voted to exclude blacks from its services, including Joe because they did not want him to bring his family members to worship services.
Unbelievable. Stunningly unbelievable. I cannot come up with strong enough words to describe my feelings for this church's decision. Such actions are nothing less than antichrist in the truest sense of the word.
The only bright spot in the entire event is that the church's pastor, Rev. John Stevens took a stand and chose to resign that very night rather than stay another day in service to a racist church. One other family, that of a Tupelo police officer, also left the small church that averages about 30 members. According to the Christianity Today Weblog, this story is surprisingly getting very little attention from the press so far.
I encourage you to read the full story "Pastor Leaves After Church Turns Away Biracial Boy" from the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. [Note: the link to the news story now points to a revised version and not the original one I referenced when I wrote this blog entry. For more information and access to both versions of the story, see my follow-up blog entry.]
Lest anyone forget, let me remind everyone right now that there is no room for racial division at the cross of Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:28 says ,
In Christ’s family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ.
(The Message)
Fellowship Baptist Church is aligned with the Baptist Missionary Alliance. Unfortunately, I do not know any of this denomination's distinctive beliefs. However I am glad to say that my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention is officially opposed to all forms of racism. Article IX of The Baptist Faith and Message, "The Christian and Social Order," clearly states that "In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism...." That doesn't mean that we merely say we are against racism; it means that Southern Baptists are called to take an active role to counter racism wherever it appears.
If the Baptist Missionary Alliance has any similar beliefs against racism (and they certainly ought to), then Fellowship Baptist Church should be DISfellowshipped.
Redacted 8/26, 11:30 AM.
Related Reading: "Follow-Up to the Mississippi Church Racial Controversy"
Somebody Get an Anvil!
I understand that there is a need to explain our culture and our heritage to children, and to make sure they understand it in the proper context. That includes cartoons. Cartoon Network did a special a couple of years ago that looked at Japanese racism in World War II cartoons, including racist slang and mentioning interment camps.
But come on…smoking? Tom and Jerry hit each other with frying pans, shovels, etc., set each other on fire, blow each other up, shoot at each other. They practice just about every form of cartoon violence possible. And this company is going to edit out smoking? Shouldn’t they be worried that children will be imitating some of Tom and Jerry’s other inappropriate behavior?
Furthermore, kids see smoking just about everywhere. Hollywood had a contract (written or unwritten) with the tobacco industry for years to show characters using cigarettes. Court documents have revealed that Joe Camel was especially created to get the youth market, and that tobacco advertising has been aimed toward children for years. Cutting it out of a cartoon, good intentions or not, is like putting a band-aid on a trauma wound.
But that’s not what really makes me mad. No, what is insane about this is that the company received a complaint from only ONE person. Not a group, not a bunch of people, just one person. A company caved in to one complaint.
I wish Chuck Jones and Tex Avery were still alive. They directed some of the best Tom and Jerry cartoons, and I bet they would have something wickedly funny to say about this. As it is, I hope their ghosts find all the people involved in this and drop anvils on their heads. But not before giving them a blindfold and one last puff of a cigarette (and I just know that some of you are going to criticize me for that comment).
Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.
My Personal Kobayashi Maru: Why Good Teaching Should Never Rely on Technology
I feel rather undressed without a lectern in a classroom or without a good solid pulpit in a church. (Do not give me a music stand! These contraptions cannot even support the weight of a good-sized Bible.) This affection for the lectern is not merely an idiosyncrasy on my part (I hope). The solid object from which a teacher or preacher speaks serves as the anchor for one’s notes, books, and articles. It provides a center point for engaging the class with the voice and the documents. Without a lectern, one loses this point of focus and gravity. One is reduced to standing directly in front of the class, perhaps holding one’s notes in one’s hand and grabbing a book off to the side once in a while. It is not good.
Why the disappearance of the lectern? Groothuis says it's the increasing dependance on PowerPoint for teaching. Teachers are keying in their notes on their laptops and teaching from presentation software. I've been teaching in one form or another--whether in high school or college classrooms, Bible studies at church or in homes, or occasionally behind a preacher's pulpit--for twenty years now. I'm no Luddite when it comes to technology--I use it quite a bit and am doing so simply to write this blog entry. But I agree with Groothuis that dependance on technology in teaching, or worse technology as a substitute for teaching is a mistake, and I'll tell you why.
Do you remember the Kobayashi Maru in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? To prove that the Wikipedia has some good uses, let me quote from it in regard to the Kobayashi Maru:
In the Star Trek fictional universe, the Kobayashi Maru is a starship that serves as the subject of a graded training exercise at Starfleet Academy, in which command division cadets are presented with a no-win scenario as a test of character.
...
James T. Kirk takes the test three times while at Starfleet Academy. Prior to his third attempt, Kirk surreptitiously reprograms the simulator so that it is possible to win. He justifies it by arguing that putting cadets in a no-win situation was cheating, and so he had to cheat in return. He receives a commendation for original thinking.
Well, I had my own personal Kobayshi Maru when I was just starting out as a teacher. In 1990 I was finishing up my undergraduate degree in English Education. This involved 12 weeks of student teaching at the local public high school. Near the end of this experience, I was to be observed and evaluated by my supervisor at the university. She was not my original supervisor, but one who had been assigned to me near the end of my degree program and we had no real personal relationship with each other. All I knew of her was from her reputation--that she was tough, hard to please and could be unmerciful. She was known for making students repeat their student teaching experience.
Although this was 1990, I was already using a computer extensively in my preparation. I was the first student teacher to prepare all quizzes, tests, and handouts by computer--using MS Works for DOS, no less. Of course, I had to print everything in bold so that the results from a 24 pin dot matrix printer would copy successfully onto the purple ink of the ditto machine. And of course, because I had prepared a test on the computer, I could easily go back and correct mistakes as opposed to the documents that the older teachers used which were full of handwritten corrections and had been for the twenty or thirty years they used them because they didn't want to retype it on their typewriters. I impressed the teacher I was working under at the high school with my overhead transparencies. Overheads produced from typewriters were difficult to see. But using a computer I could actually raise the font to a legible size. This was well before PowerPoint became mainstream.
Near the end of my student teaching experience, my supervisor was scheduled to come and evaluate me. Everything was riding on this, so I had to do well. But i was less than hopeful. This was my kobiyashi maru--my seemingly unwinnable scenario. Why? Because this particular supervisor had a reputation for sabotaging her students simply to observe how they would react. She didn't care how well they could teach a lesson. She didn't care how much learning might actually be going on in a classroom. She just had some kind of sadistic desire to make her students squirm, and if possible, fail.
So, the night before my observation, I went through my entire lesson over and over again. I tried to think of various ways she could trip me up, and then I discovered the weakness in my own prepared lesson--a lesson, by the way, that I had to give to her in advance with a list of everything I would use to teach it. I had to ask myself what could happen that would possibly prevent me from being able to teach my lesson in the event of a worst case scenario. In asking that, I had my answer.
So as I began to teach my lesson the next morning, I went to turn on the overhead projector as I always did every class. But this time, the bulb didn't work. No light, and to make matters worse, my whole lesson revolved around that projector. I knew I had just changed that bulb the week before. Further, there's always an extra bulb inside the projector. But when I looked inside, it was missing. My she-demon supervisor thought she had me. I didn't dare make eye contact with her. I didn't want to see what I assumed to be a smirk across her lips or the glow of her devil horns.
Instead, very cooly, I reached down to the lower shelf of the projector stand and pulled out a stack of papers. I said to the class, "Well, I didn't want to give you this until the end of class, but since the projector isn't working, you may look on the handout I've made for you that has the exact same information as my overhead.
I learned a valuable lesson that day: never depend on technology for my lesson.
And I've learned to ask this most important question: Can I still teach my lesson if my technology fails?
It's not to say that I don't use technology in the classroom. I use technology to type my lessons, but I always print them out to have them with me, and I simply prefer to teach from paper than from a computer screen. Yes, I will use PowerPoint (technically I now use Keynote), but I never let presentation software drive my lesson. It is a tool to aid my discussion; it is not the basis for the discussion itself.
Over the years I have experimented with placing my lessons on a PalmPilot or teaching from the notes view in PowerPoint, but I've never stuck with these methods beyond trying them for curiosity's sake because they don't meet the qualification of my question in bold above. The visuals that presentation software allows me to use are fantastic, and I take advantage of it. However, I never let it become the focus of what I'm doing. I can teach with my notes and the ability to engage my students in discussion and create a better learning atmosphere than a PowerPoint-based lesson any day.
Since the dawn of the computer in the classroom, I've seen professors waste valuable class time because they couldn't get their laptops to "talk" with the projector. I've known of professors to cancel class altogether simply because a projector bulb was out. It's absolutely shameful to the profession to waste the students' time like that. But if everything is dependent upon the technology, what else can they do?
I've walked out of the house with my PowerBook on my shoulder only to have the strap break and have the computer come crashing to the ground. I had the same iBook in for repairs twice because of that in 2001. If I had all my notes exclusively on that computer, I would have been in a real mess. Laptops can break, Palm screens can crack, and projector bulbs can go out. But can I still teach if my technology fails?
The problem with computers is they offer to do everything for us. Yet, when they decide not to work, it leaves us without the ability to go back and do things the way we used to.
I don't necessarily have to have a full podium like Groothuis. A tabletop lectern is fine, and I even simply use a music stand when I teach Sunday School these days. In the regular classroom, I have my PowerBook handy, but it's down on the table--it's not the center of what I'm doing.
And if the technology fails, this teacher can still teach just fine.
Is the Wikipedia the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (that is, the book by Douglas Adams), ch. 2:
Here's what the Encyclopedia Galactica has to say about alcohol. It says that alcohol is a colorless volatile liquid formed by the fermentation of sugars and also notes its intoxicating effect on certain carbon-based life forms.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also mentions alcohol. It says that the best drink in existence is the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.
It says that the effect of drinking a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.
The Guide also tells you on which planets the best Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters are mixed, how much you can expect to pay for one and what voluntary organizations exist to help you rehabilitate afterward.
The Guide even tells you how you can mix one yourself.
Take the juice from one bottle of the Ol' Janx Spirit, it says.
Pour into it one measure of water from the seas of Santraginus V--Oh, that Santraginean seawater, it says. Oh, those Santraginean fish!
Allow three cubes of Arcturan Mega-gin to melt into the mixture (it must be properly iced or the benzine is lost).
Allow four liters of Fallian marsh gas to bubble through it, in memory of all those happy bikers who have died of pleasure in the Marshes of Fallia.
Over the back of a silver spoon, float a measure of Qualactin Hypermint extract, redolent of all the beady odors of the dark Qualactin Zones, subtle, sweet and mystic.
Drop in the tooth of an Algolian Suntiger. Watch it disolve, spreading the fires of the Algolian Suns deep into the heart of the drink.
Sprinkle Zamphuor.
Add an olive.
Drink...but...very carefully...
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy sells rather better than the Encyclopedia Galactica.
Now hold that thought.
For those of you just tuning in, this post is part of an ongoing conversation between myself and David Ker (host of Lingamish) regarding the benefits and limitations of encyclopedias such as the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. David is bonkers over the Wikipedia. I'm much more trusting of the kind of editorial controls found in a more traditional source like Britannica.
Having said that, I use the Wikipedia regularly. I have multiple links to it here on my blog. Encyclopedias are the starting point of research, and as such, both the Wikipedia and Britannica are good sources of information. But in the end, for serious starting points, I simply favor Britannica and its editorial controls.
In David's last post, "The Flattening of Knowledge," he spoke of the benefits of collaboration on the internet. He noted that more people have access to information than at any other time in the history of the world, and more people have an opportunity to be heard than ever before. Both of these ideas are very true, and the Wikipedia embodies them both.
I'm not opposed to access to information by everyone; nor am I opposed to voices being heard. But as I have mentioned before, I have problems with the Wikipedia's absence of--for lack of a better term--quality control. I have already discussed my concern, not with the democratization of knowledge, but the democratization of truth. The advantage of the Wikipedia is also its curse: anyone can contribute. And regardless of whether or not information is true, it can remain in an article unless it's challenged. But even if it's challenged, if the original contributor is persistent enough or if enough other contributors agree (or can be convinced to agree), then the posting becomes fact. This is a problem, no matter how much we revel in all of our voices being heard. And in my opinion, that makes the Wikipedia an unreliable source because information becomes far too fluid.
A second concern of mine has to do with the Wikipedia's lack of editorial discretion. What I mean by this is that there's really no control over what information is included, even insignificant details about a subject or even insignificant subjects themselves.
For instance, the Wikipedia boasts 1,300,000 articles in English. Now the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica only has about 100,000 articles. Does the Wikipedia therefore trump Britannica? I don't think so. On any Wikipedia page, there's a link in the top left side called "Random Article." Here are five clicks I made. I give you my word that these are the articles I received in five successive hits and I haven't fudged the list in any way.
1. British School - Muscat = "a school in Muscat, Oman, catering primarily for the British expatriate community, but containing many students of many different nationalities."
2. Asherah = (from Hebrew אשרה), generally taken as identical with the Ugaritic goddess Athirat (more pedantically but accurately ʼAṯirat), was a major northwest Semitic mother goddess, appearing occasionally also in Akkadian sources as Ashratum/Ashratu and in Hittite as Asherdu(s) or Ashertu(s) or Aserdu(s) or Asertu(s)."
3. Pedro Dimas = "a Mexican violinist, guitarist, composer, and preservationist of traditional music from the Purépecha, an indigenous culture in the Mexican state of Michoacán."
4. Sumed Ibrahem = "(born December 30, 1980 in Tamale, Ghana) is a Ghanaian soccer player, who, as of 2005, plays midfield for the Harrisburg City Islanders of USL Second Division."
5. Abaújvár = "a village in Hungary, next to the Slovakian border. It lies 72 km northeast of Miskolc."
Of these entries, only the second one is also included in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Does this make Britannica inferior? I don't think so. I guess it's good to have all this other information in one handy place, but I think it demonstrates that the sheer number of articles in Wikipedia doesn't mean much as some are so obscure they are essentially irrelevant for the average person. There are articles for everything form comic book characters to individual episodes of television shows. Thus, the Wikipedia is a bit like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as it contains information on just about everything. I suppose that this is not a bad thing, but it does not make it superior to Britannica which by necessity should be more selective in its content.
Another problem with this lack of editorial discretion is the kind of information found in many of the articles. Let me illustrate. Last week, Kathy and I were at home watching the news on one of the cable channels, and after the serious events of the day were exhausted, a report was aired about Paris Hilton having to go to the emergency room in the middle of the night because she was bit by her pet kinkajou. I had never heard of a kinkajou and announced as much to Kathy.
"You've never heard of a kinkajou?" she asked as if surprised.
"No," I replied. "What's a kinkajou."
"Everyone knows what a kinkajou is. It's an exotic pet. Paris Hilton has one."
Not impressed with her explanation, I decided to look kinkajou up for myself in my 2006 edition of Britannica that I have loaded on my PowerBook. I got this short article:
Well, not too bad. It gave me
everything I need to know and then some. In preparation for this
blog entry, I decided to look up kinkajou in the
Wikipedia. To its credit, I got pretty much the same
information--at least in regard to the main facts. But I nearly
fell out of my chair when I noticed this sentence: "Paris Hilton's
Kinkajou, "Baby Luv" has been in the media twice in the past two
years; once when he scratched her and the CA Fish and Game Dept
issued her a warning for illegally transporting the animal, and
again in August 2006 when he bit her arm. Both injuries were minor.
Owning a kinkajou in CA is illegal." Is this really
important information to put an article about this animal? Will
this be relevant in 50 years? In 50 days? [Note: it seems that
evidently, there is a Wiki-squabble going on and various forms of
the Paris Hilton incident have been added and removed over the last
few days. If you decide to look up the kinkajou
article and you think I made the whole Paris Hilton insertion
up, please look at the history of the article. All I know is that I
expect Google hits to my website to triple now that I've used the
name "Paris Hilton" five times in one blog entry.] Regardless, this
is a prime example of the lack of a final editorial control over
the Wikipedia's content. Certainly, someone may remove
objectionable content, but there's nothing to keep someone else
from putting it back in. Such self-regulation appears very
democratic on the surface, but it seems to me that there needs to
be a final authority who can simply freeze content.
As an experiment of how easy it is to manipulate an article, I
added a reference to myself in one. Now, I didn't add fraudulent
information, but I did add irrelevant information. Under
the famous residents section of the Wikipedia
article on Shreveport, Louisiana, I listed myself as having
been born there (which I was). I'm going to paste it here below
because I don't think it's ethical for me to leave it there more
than about 24 hours just to prove my point.
My name is in red because I created a
stub for my name so that it could be edited, and thus a new article
about yours truly could be created. Don't worry, as I said, I'm
going to remove the whole thing. This is just to prove why I
believe a peer-edited resource like Britannica is a much more
reliable source of information than the Wikipedia.
David, I will concede to you a major point. You wrote in your last
post about this subject:
We can talk all we want about how wonderful the editors and writers are for EB but the simple fact is this:
Virtually no one has access to the Encyclopedia Britannica in the 21st century!
So if you consider that to be a problem (I do!), then our primary concern should be creating access to the EB. If the publishers don’t fix that problem, their excellent information is going to become rapidly irrelevant.
Frankly, I can only assume that the rise of the personal computer and especially the internet has hurt Britannica sales dramatically. If video killed the radio star, will the internet kill the bound encyclopedia? Maybe. Britannica is available in three forms: (1) the print bound set, (2) computer editions, and (3) all articles are available via the internet. But unlike the Wikipedia, none of these are free unless you count access to the bound sets at your local library. The fee-based internet editions are primarily sold to schools. The online edition is updated daily, but not by just anyone, and inclusions of pop-culture figures and events are weighed very carefully. But if the PTB at Britannica decided to simply give this information away for free to everyone over the internet, how would they stay in business? This is something I don't have an easy answer for.
Fortunately the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says, DON'T PANIC.
Ummm...What ARE the 10 Commandments?
Appalling on numerous levels.
If you want to see the entire interview, go here.
Why Britannica Trumps Wikipedia (Thank-You, Stephen Colbert)
The satirical current events show The Colbert Report, which airs Monday through Thursday nights on Comedy Central, has a history of messing with the mainstream media to comedic ends. But last night, host Stephen Colbert went after Wikipedia. The results, as always, were hilarious.
Check out the video for the Wikiality segment on YouTube. Colbert encourages his viewers to change the Wikipedia entry for elephant so that it says the number of African elephants has tripled in the last six months. The result? Various Wikipedia articles referring to elephants, African elephants, African Bush elephants, African Forest elephants and the like were immediately moved to semi-protected status by the site's administrators. Pages with the semi-protected designation can only be edited by registered and trusted users. Colbert's Wikipedia user account was also blocked from making edits.
Watch the segment for yourself:
Sometimes Colbert offends me, but sometimes his use of insincerity gives a potent voice to my feelings about a subject. I've had a deep gnawing problem with the Wikipedia for a while--specifically the democratization of knowledge and the potential for the relativistic abuse of information. Here are some of the best quotes from the video clip linked above:
"I love the Wikipedia. Any site that has a longer entry on 'truthiness' [a term coined by Colbert] than on Lutherans has its priorities straight."
Regarding the mechanics of the Wikipedia: "Any user can change any entry and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true."
"Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now thanks to Wikipedia [types on his laptop keyboard], it's also a fact.
"Together we can create a reality that we can all agree on: the reality we just agreed on."
You see, this is exactly why the Encyclopedia Britannica is better than the Wikipedia. I have a 15th edition, 1995 set at home and the 2006 electronic edition on my PowerBook. It goes with me just about everywhere. Britannica's entries are written by experts in the field and they are subject to a review board. With the Wikipedia the articles can be written or altered by just about anyone. And who knows if what's written there is true, false, accurate, or inaccurate?
If I want to write (or change) an article on the Wikipedia, I can just log in (or act anonymously) and write whatever I want. If I want to write an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, I have to spend years becoming an expert in my field, become widely published and recognized for my expertise in the subject and then, maybe I will be allowed to write for Britannica.
The Wikipedia is great for information about anything relating to pop-culture, such as if I want to read about the latest theories and analysis regarding the television show, Lost. But if I want a starting place to seriously investigate a subject--history, science, literature, biography, philosophy, and even religion-- with an article written by a known expert, with an extensive bibliography for further research, I'll go to the Encyclopedia Britannica--every time.
Related previous posts:
- The Wikipedia is Not Enough
- Martin Luther Was Excommunicated on This Day and Why I Love the Encyclopedia Britannica
