This book is pretty much the standard technological dream stuff. He describes a digital future which sounds about like the book 1984, or some of the other variations of that idea. The book has chapters about different topics, like statehood or something else. Then he tends to begin paragraphs with “In the future state X will be the case.” As a tech industry expert he has more of a basis for making categorical statements about the future than I do, but I still wouldn’t consider any futurist predictions to be reliable.

The other problem with the book is that it tends to follow a predictable narrative. It is as if Schmidt has this Utopian sort of statehood in mind, and tries to describe how Technology will get us there from the broken sort of reality we are in presently. Spoiler alert, the future is always brighter in this book, but sometimes not in the way you would think. For example, he talks about a future government issued online ID that will take the place of facebook, gmail, or whatever as your login. This will happen so that digital life is more secure in the future, but it will also happen to prevent people from hiding from the system. Hmmm…

All in all, his book follows a predictable tech-as-savior narrative. By that, I mean, the world has problem X, and if we use Y technology, then problem X will be solved. So in his view the future can be better, nearly perfect, IF we adopt the proper technology. Interestingly his negative features of technology all come about from the side of how people use it, and not whether the technology itself is good or bad. I keep thinking that a better statement is that “some technology is better than others, and that “things” will only get better if the right technology is adopted.” Still, as a Christian writing this review it was very noticeable that there is no room for a God who redeems the world in Schmidt’s tech-narrative.

illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet

This week, I’m starting a new series called “Heroes of the Old Testament.” John McArthur did a similar series with similar characters I have found. But, this is a question based Bible Study, written for small group bible studies to promote discussion. This week we look at Enoch a very influential character in 2nd Temple Judaism around the time of Christ. But what do we really know about him, and why is he so important?

Sorry for the late posting (I usually try to post before Sunday and I only did it by 26min central time).

image from salon.com

student (Cody Wilson) makes a statement that the issue is bigger than guns. I want to suggest he is correct.

In my judgment, the reason for the sudden interest in 3D printing of a gun is that the digital age has truly intersected the physical world. Digital technology has usually meant the democratization of information. The internet allows anyone, even me, to publish ideas alongside those of journalists from traditional media. The internet exerted pressure on the issues of copyright and intellectual property. It was a “screen” issue until now. The only people who could be “ripped off” were those elite who sit in chairs and don’t do “real work.” Additionally, the damage potential of what is on a screen is not physical (though I would argue the ideas on a screen are potentially more dangerous – e.g. Boston Marathon Bombers). But when 3D printers became (or continue to become) more affordable, this meant that the physical world could be impacted. If you want a new chair, print one instead of pay a craftsman to do it. Of course, you would have to find the plans online – but we all know people will publish those for free in an attempt to gain ad revenue (like Google does). So, craftsmen and the means of production have been potentially usurped. Not only that, but anyone could potentially have access to any plans for printing on the internet.

Back to guns and 3D printing… The plans published online and a 3D printer allow anyone to be able to make a gun, and become a gun owner. Sure, that means even felons and “crazy” people could print a gun at home. One should note, that right now it would be easier and more economical to purchase a gun on the black market, or steal one than to print one with a 3D printer. But that current fact, does not change the reality at hand.

If someone took the time to accurately photograph all of the parts of a Glock 22, then changed the design ever so slightly, they could legally publish them online and make the weapon available to anyone. Yes I now printers would have to come a long way, but they will. In my hypothetical case, the handgun industry would be undercut just like the media industry has been in the last 10 years with software piracy. Additionally laws would be circumvented in the same manner as with software piracy.

My guess is that the gun industry will at some point realize what is happening and begin to lobby for laws against 3D printing of guns. Don’t be surprised if other industries want to file suit. Yet, I think that the US government will be less likely to ban 3D printing of say – car parts (to repair your vehicle) than guns because people fear the imagined violence which would be possible in the gun scenario. But as Christians, we should realize that the issue is not about guns. The issue is how do we deal with 3D printing.

Do we treat 3D printing as if it emancipates the poor from the evil corporations (as some postcolonial theorists likely will)? Or do we treat 3D printing like a guy on a street corner selling bootlegged movies or fake jewelry? In my judgment we should be consistent. I don’t think Christians should ever forget the implications of “Thou shalt not steal.” So we should not be in favor of any 3D printing that attempts to “rip off” a product (the intellectual property of another). Yet, if someone like Cody Wilson wants to engineer a new product and distribute the 3D plans online, should we care? I don’t think so, since it is their intellectual property and they can do with it as they wish (in his case, give it away). It is the only consistent position I can see right now.

Of course, I’d love to hear your thoughts and positions on the issue.

photo by Brian A. Petersen

I was studying furiously for my NT comprehensive exam (which I passed!! hooray!), and realized I wanted to practice conjugating/parsing verbs. One great tool I found is this one. I found it through the greatest biblical language study website I’ve seen to date, The Institute of Biblical Greek. They have links to just about every sort of language resource you could want. I would recommend looking at the verbs page. So, whether you are a beginning student, a minister looking to brush up on biblical languages, or an aspiring scholar, you will benefit from the tools on those two websites. For your convenience they have also been added to the Bible Study Portal.

from chicagonow.com

Much of 1 Corinthians discusses spiritual gifts; what they are and how to use them in a church. Since I have been engaged in studying this book for a while now, it is appropriate that someone brought up the question: how do I know my spiritual gifts. Online tests might help you here.

I found a good site with tests for adults, and youth at spiritualgiftstest.com

A less polished looking, but probably also effective site is churchgrowth.org and their test.

Several friends have pointed out (and I concur) that these tests are a good guide, but not the FINAL word on what your gifts are. You should take these results with a grain of salt, and also take into account what you enjoy doing at church, and what other Christians have told you that you are good at. The biblical descriptions of gifts would be a good starting point for you to know what spiritual gifts are, so I would recommend reading 1 Corinthians 12 for that purpose.

I will still be posting the “digital download: bible study” series on Saturdays – since I’ll still be teaching at church and its easy to upload my outline.

The pace at which technology changes far outpaces our ability to be mindful of all that it brings with it. I highly doubt that people would have been so quick to adopt blackberries in the early 2000′s if they had known that a constant flood of emails would mean a never ending to-do list that is chained to your hip. On the flip side, I’m surprised that more people don’t understand that if you have the internet, you have phone, tv and everything already. You don’t need another dedicated wire. Corporations haven’t seen this, or are reluctant to admit the fact. TV ratings are still based on people viewing through a set top box device which reports to a ratings system. Only this year have they started to count DVR use, and online views. But I only watch TV that way!! It is much cheaper and therefore effective for me to do it in that manner.

As Christians we must sort out the change of technology in our own lives. I’d say you need to have a system for “getting things done” that works for you. You also need a way to communicate with others, and network with others. (This could be a business card with a handshake for you low-tech people – or sending a business card via Bump or QRcode). How do you read God’s word? Do you use technology to do so? How do you meditate and write down your thoughts? If you can already take care of these functions, you probably don’t need any “new” technology. You can use what you have. I think this is one of the keys to understanding the spiritual discipline of simplicity.

What about churches? Should they use the newest technology? I’d say it depends on the makeup of the congregation and the target audience. Many churches truly don’t need to adopt new technologies, because their membership’s newest technology is talking on a cell-phone that only makes voice calls. Other churches will want to stream video to highly mobile congregations which are not always in town, or are spread over great distances. Many churches will find the use of technology in distributing information (announcements, prayer requests, etc.) to be helpful, and cost-effective. I would love to see churches have a person designated as the “technology person” who actually thinks about whether the church should do something, or needs to do it, and not whether it “can.” Pragmatism isn’t always the answer, often reflection brings insight.