Christians And Digital Media - Henry Center For .
Christians &DIGITAL MEDIABenefits and BurdensBY C. Ben Mitchell
C. Ben Mitchell PhD is the Provost & Vice President for AcademicAffairs and holds the Graves Chair of Moral Philosophy at UnionUniversity in Jackson, Tennessee.The Christ on Campus Initiative exists to inspire students oncollege and university campuses to think wisely, act with conviction,and become more Christ-like by providing relevant and excellentevangelical resources on contemporary issues.We aim to distribute resources—prepared by top evangelicalscholars, pastors, and thinkers—that are intellectually rigorous,persuasive in argument, appealing in tone, and consistent withhistoric evangelical Christianity.The Christ on Campus Initiative is generously supported by theCarl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding (aministry of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) and the MACFoundation.This essay is Copyright 2016 by Christ on Campus Initiative(CCI). Readers and organizations may circulate this and otherCCI essays without charge.
Christians &DIGITAL MEDIABenefits and BurdensBY C. Ben MitchellWe were having an early dinner atone of our favorite mom-and-poprestaurants in a sleepy little Southerntown just outside where we live. AsNancy and I were talking aboutour day, a lad about 10 or 12 yearsold came through the door with anformica-top tables while drinking sweettea and watching the sparse traffic passby on the other side of the plate-glasswindows of the storefront restaurant.The scene was about as bucolic as it getsthese days. It could just as easily havebeen 1956 as 2016. Except.The strong tides that shapeddigital technologies for thepast 30 years.will continueto expand and harden in thenext 30 years.older woman who appeared to behis grandmother. It was as close to aNorman Rockwell scene as one mightimagine. Grandmother and grandsonwere out for a quiet meal togetheron a Friday evening. One could evenimagine this being a weekly treat forthem both, a regular liturgy of life inthis tiny community.Bob, the owner of the restaurant, isalso the cook. The owner’s wife waitstables, delivering daily specials, superbhamburgers, or house-made pizzasto mostly local customers who sit atAs we waited for our burger baskets,I noticed that the young lad was usinga smartphone. That’s not unusual forsomeone his age or, for that matter,any age these days. His grandmotherquickly surveyed the menu, asked theboy what he wanted to eat, and placedthe order. The lad never looked upfrom his phone. I mean he never lookedup from his phone. While he and hisgrandmother waited for their order,both of his thumbs were busy on thephone. Meanwhile, the grandmothergazed from one direction to another,3
trying to find something to interesther while the lad played on. He neverlooked up. When their meals arrived, heswitched from two hands on the phoneto one hand on the phone and one handholding his hamburger. He did not lookup for the entire 20 minutes it took himto bolt down that sandwich. After theyhad both eaten their meals, the boyfollowed his grandmother out of therestaurant, still never looking up fromhis phone.What could have been anemotionally bonding experiencebetween a grandmother and hergrandson, turned out to be dinneralone, together. Instead of receiving thewisdom of her years of life experience,the lad spent all his time on a digitaldevice. The most disheartening realityof this picture is that we’ve all seen orexperienced something similar and it’snot as disturbing to us as it ought to be.Familiarity has eroded contempt. Or, atthe very least, we have no idea what todo about it, so we just move on whilethe proverbial water boils the frog inthe kettle.Digital technology is here tostay. And on our best days, I don’tthink we’d want it to go away. We’vebecome quite comfortable with digitaltechnologies and even dependenton many of them. We like the speed,efficiency, and connectivity they offer.We have come to depend on a quicktext message, an informative email, oran entertaining meme on Facebook.As the number of so-called digitalnatives continues to swell—thoseindividuals born after 1980 who havealways had access to computers, laptops,tablets, smartphones, and whatever isnext—rapid adoption of new digitaltechnologies will continue to be thenorm rather than the exception.Yet despite the number oftechnologies we use, there seems to belarge scale naïveté about technology’seffects, especially the impact ofdigital technologies. Even otherwisehelpful theologians and social analystssometimes make the unsophisticatedclaim that technologies are morallyneutral; that in and of themselvesthey are neither good nor bad, butit is the use of the technology thatmay be right or wrong. If it were thatsimple, answers to our questionswould be much simpler. Unfortunately,the morality of technology is morecomplicated than we have imagined.Emerging biotechnologies—like geneticaugmentation, artificial intelligence,cybernetics, and robotics, for instance—mean that the human technologist maybecome the technology, the engineermay become the engineered. That is,beings themselves may become theartifacts of biotechnological innovation.More about that later.As Stephen Monsma and hiscolleagues at Calvin College pointedout decades ago in their bookResponsible Technology,1 and the Frenchphilosopher Jacques Ellul 2 beforethem, technologies are hardly valueneutral. That is not to presume thattechnology is by nature evil. Far fromit. But every tool has an impact on itsuser and the choice to develop andadopt any technology is a morallyfreighted choice. We must assume thatthe technology makes life better or wewould most likely reject it. And since“better” implies some notion of thegood life, the invention and adoption ofa particular technology is informed bycertain values, almost always nowadaysthe notion that efficiency is better thaninefficiency and that faster is necessarilybetter than slower.4
“Every tool hasan impact onits user andthe choice todevelop andadopt anytechnologyis a morallyfreighted choice.
Despite the fact that we makecertain choices about technology, asfounding editor of WIRED magazine,Kevin Kelly, has put it, there seems tobe an inevitability about it. Some peopleeven speak of a kind of technologicaldeterminism; if the technology existswe must use it. Although technologicaldeterminism may overstate thecase, Kelly’s point is that there is acertain momentum to technologicaldevelopments, including digitalinnovation, that continues to propelthem. “The strong tides that shapeddigital technologies for the past 30 years,”he predicts, “will continue to expandand harden in the next 30 years.”3 Ifhe’s right, and I suspect he is, where istechnology going, and what will ourtechnoculture look like in 30 years?These are profound questions, especiallyfor Christians who, as the apostle hassaid, are not to be conformed to theworld, but to be transformed by therenewing of our minds (Romans 12:2).Let’s begin with where we are today.The accumulated data are breathtaking.According to the World EconomicForum’s report, Digital Media and Society:Implications in a Hyperconnected Era,4 in2015 there were approximately 3 billioninternet users, 2 billion active socialmedia users, and more than 1.6 billionmobile social accounts.Consumers of digital media spendincreasing amounts of time with theirdigital devices: People now spend an average of 2hours daily on the mobile web. Individuals devote 1.8 hours tosocial networking, 30% of theirdaily online time. Digital natives spend on averagemore than 7 hours per day ontheir smartphones or onmultiple digital devices (oftenat the same time). The average “frequent user” isyoung, male, well educated, andwith one child. As of the second quarter of 2016,Facebook had 1.71 billionactive users. WhatsApp users grew from 700million worldwide in 2015 to1 billion by February 2016. WeChat dominates socialmedia in China, with over 697million users. The average user is bombarded bymore than 1,700 banner adsper month.These are stunning numbers thatgive some people vertigo and others aIn 2015 there were approximately3 billion internet users, 2billion active social mediausers, and more than 1.6 billionmobile social accounts.6
mild adrenaline rush. What might allof this mean for the future? Whereare we going? Are we being led bymarket forces and insatiable humandesire, or are we making carefullyinformed choices about digital media?And how are Christians to think aboutthese things?First, I want to outline someof the opportunities digital mediaoffer individuals, society, Christians,and their churches. Then, in thecontext of what we know about ouranthropology—what it means to behuman—I want to say something aboutthe challenges thesenew technologiesbring. Then, Iwill offer somerecommendationsbased on thefindings.For the record,I am neither atechnologicaloptimist nor atechnologicalpessimist. I ama critical realistwho thinks we should make informedjudgments. Furthermore, I am apersonalist5 who believes that personstake priority over things. In that samespirit of full disclosure, I should revealthat I am not a digital native but adigital immigrant. That is, I grew upbefore the advent of contemporarydigital technology. For some, thisfact may disqualify me from theconversation. Rather than disqualifyme, however, in her excellent volumei-Minds, clinical neuropsychologist MariSwingle points out that “one advantagedigital immigrants do have is that ofperspective: we all have been witnessesto great changes in ourselves and thegeneration(s) that came after us.” 6 So,for whatever it may be worth, I will offermy perspective as a digital immigrant.Although I had owned a personalcomputer for several years prior, Ivividly remember less than 40 yearsago connecting for the first time to myuniversity’s UNIVAX system througha telephone dial-up connection. Thosewere the days of the CRT (cathode raytube) screen with a black backgroundand amber letters. Users had to bootup their computer, enter a telephonenumber, and listen to a screeching noisethat sounded a lot like some kind ofsadistic cat torture asa desktop computerwith two 3½ inch diskdrives was connectedby telephone line to amainframe computerhoused in a speciallyair-conditioned roomsomewhere in thebelly of the campus.If someone else hadalready connectedthrough thattelephone number,you got a busy signal and had to tryanother number. If that number wasalso busy, you had to wait until the linewas free again.I was just beginning doctoral workin 1989. Although connection to theInternet was less than instantaneous,the ability to send and receiveemail, participate in list serves, andcommunicate through synchronouschat were thrilling developments. Iremember my amazement the first timeI had an onscreen live-chat with anothergraduate student. I was in Tennessee,she was in Israel. I would type a lineor two, wait 10-20 seconds, and see herlines appear on my screen 10-20 seconds7
after she typed them. As primitive andapp-less as it all seems now, sciencefiction became science fact right beforemy very eyes.But I noticed that something elsehappened along the way. I rememberreading, reflecting, and writing for manyuninterrupted hours at a time duringgraduate school days. Because everyoneelse was working hard too, there werefew distractions in the graduate studentapartment complex. When I did take thetime to endure the relatively elaborateand time-consuming procedure to checkemail or visit the list serve, there wouldonly be a few new entries in any 24-hourperiod. I would check email once ortwice a day, not only because it took solong to get connected, but because therewards would be slim. Connectivitywas less than instantaneous, andinformation was less than abundant.Since confession is good for thesoul, I will tell you, frankly, that myattention span is not what it was beforedigital technology. The siren call ofemail, Facebook, Twitter, Printerest,and a hundred other apps now beckonsus every hour of the day and night. Ireceive more email in an hour than I didfor entire days during graduate school.My email program notifies me of thedelivery of each new communicationwith an audible alert. Many peoplewho don’t want to wait on a returnedemail now text me expecting a moreimmediate response.There is exponentially more contenton the internet today than in 1991, whenthe first webpage appeared. In termsof volume, the internet quadrupledin size between 2014 and the end of2016. More than 1.3 zettabytes of dataare transported between computernetworks worldwide—that’s 1.3 followedwith 20 zeros. By 2020 this numberis estimated to grow to 40 zettabytes.That number is so large it’s difficult tocomprehend.Among other things, all of thismeans that it is increasingly challengingin our digital age to concentrate formultiple minutes, much less hours at atime without interruption, admittedly,often self-imposed interruption.Although I will grant that my experiencecannot be taken to be universal, Isuspect that there are plenty of otherswho can empathize. What does allof this mean for the future of digitalcommunication? What does all of thismean for Christians and for the church?The Opportunities ofDigital TechnologiesWe should note, firstly, that the internethas done much to connect people, givethem a voice, and facilitate the creationof virtual communities that have theopportunity to shape real communities.Many will remember the role digitalmedia played in the ouster of Tunisianpresident Zine El Abidine Ben Ali andthe overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in theso-called Arab Spring of 2011. Socialmedia had an important part in buildingactivist networks and rallying protesters,especially in Egypt. If literacy is power,connectivity is shared power.Similarly, digital media haveunited religious believers and religiouscommunities around the world. In herwork on media and religion, Texas A&Mprofessor of communication, HeidiCampbell, chronicles the evolution ofwhat she and her colleagues have coined“digital religion.”7 Although Christianand Muslim adherents are thoughtto occupy the greatest bandwidth insocial media, Hindu, Buddhist, and8
96% of pastors use acomputer at church,46% use it for email,and 39% use it toaccess the internet.new Japanese religions have a growingfootprint in the digital landscape.Through phenomena like the birthof religious user groups, broadcaststyle web forums, and the founding ofcyberchurches and virtual interactiveworship environments, the internethas provided a new media context forreligious expression, proselytism, andengagement. And, as Campbell andothers have pointed out, it is a two-waystreet. That is, not only are new mediabeing shaped by religious communities,but religious communities are beingshaped by new media. Notions ofauthority, authenticity, community,identity, ritual, and religion are allbeing shaped and re-shaped, formedand informed by digital religion.In his introduction to Ministry inthe Digital Age, Biola University’s DavidBourgeois maintains that “[t]he Internetis the greatest communication tool everinvented by humans,”8 and that “Thesingle most important thing you can dofor your ministry’s use of the Internetand social media is to design, documentand implement a digital strategy.”9For him, one of the most strategicactivities in which a church can engageis the creation of a “digital ministryframework . . . that will allow you tobe confident that your use of digitaltechnologies is on the right track.”10According to a 2010 random surveyof Protestant churches by AxeltreeMedia in conjunction with the researcharm of Lifeway, 78% of churches9
maintain a website. Of those websites,91% provided information to potentialvisitors to the church, 79% providedinformation for the congregation, 57%encouraged increased participationby members of the church, and 52%solicited interest in ministries orvolunteer opportunities.11 A 2015 BarnaGroup study, Cyber Church: Pastors andthe Internet, found that 96% of pastorsuse a computer at church, 46% use itfor email, and 39% use it to access theinternet.12 Among those pastors whouse the internet at church, 97% use it tofind information, 88% to buy products,80% to keep upwith existingrelationships,71% to check outnew music orvideos, 39% tohave a spiritual orreligious experience,and 11% to playvideo games.In 2015 theChurch of Englandannounced thatthey would equipall of its sixteenthousand churches with wi-fi internetaccess. The idea was first suggestedby Lord Lloyd-Webber, who saidthat “connecting churches to theinternet would make them the centresof their communities once again todraw more visitors to these sites andencourage churches to enhance anddevelop outreach programs to serve thepractical and spiritual needs of a digitalgeneration.”13 The point is that, for goodor ill, digital media are increasinglyintegrated into the life of the churchesand their ministers.In her newest volume, NetworkedTheology: Negotiating Faith in DigitalCulture, Campbell and her co-author,New Zealand theologian StephenGarner, argue it is crucial we ask,“What is it . . . that the Christiantradition can offer here in light of thegood news of Jesus Christ? And howcan it offer it in a way that is intelligibleand credible to those in that contextand also valuable and relevant to theireveryday lives? All of these factorsare critical for our theologizing abouttechnology and media if it is to have avery real presence.”14Secondly, digital media are alsochanging the way we obtain information.Through theinternet we nowlive in whatamounts to a single,world-wide virtuallibrary. Receptiveknowledge, orwhat Universityof ConnecticutphilosopherMichael PatrickLynch calls“Google-knowing,”15is available toanyone who can usea computer or other digital device thatcan connect to the internet. Informationretrieval is much easier than it used to be.As an experiment Lynch says thathe wrote down four rather randomquestions to which he wanted answers:1. What is the capital of Bulgaria?2. Is a four-stroke outboard enginemore efficient than a two-stroke?3. What is the phone number of myU.S. representative?4. What is the best-reviewedrestaurant in Austin, Texas, thisweek?He tried to answer those questionswithout resorting to digital sources. He10
pulled a dictionary from his shelves,located a map, and confirmed that Sofiawas the capital of Bulgaria. He worried,however, that the information mightbe inaccurate given the publicationdate of his dictionary and the fluidity ofeastern Europe.Question 2 was more difficult, notleast because he didn’t have any boatengine manuals. So he went to a localmarina and consulted a mechanic.He got his answer after some effortand depending on whether or not themechanic actually knew what he wastalking about.commerce, but he didn’t have any wayto get their number. Besides, there wasno reason to think the chamber wouldnecessarily know the answer to such atimely question. Since his local libraryin Connecticut did not have any Texasnewspapers, he was stymied. Thebest restaurant in Austin that weekremained elusive.I just replicated his experimentusing the internet and found theanswers to all the questions in about 2minutes. “Speed is the most obviousdistinguishing characteristic of howwe know now,” says Lynch. “Google-The point is that, for goodor ill, digital media areincreasingly integrated intothe life of the churches andtheir ministers.Though he thought the thirdquestion would be easiest, heremembered that he no longer owneda phone book. And when he went tohis local library, instead of pointinghim to a telephone book, the personbehind the counter suggested that heuse the computer to find out. Afterfinally locating a telephone book on thelibrary shelves, he discovered his answer,despite the fact that it could have beenwrong since it was several years old.Question 4 proved to be the mostdifficult because he did not knowanyone in Austin, Texas. He thoughtabout calling the local chamber ofknowing is fast.”16 L
Forum’s report, Digital Media and Society: Implications in a Hyperconnected Era,4 in 2015 there were approximately 3 billion internet users, 2 billion active social media users, and more than 1.6 billion mobile social accounts. Consumers of digital media spend increasing amounts of time with their digital devices:
Digital Media Middle East & Middle Eastern Digital Media Awards 29-30 Nov 2022 Riyadh Digital Media Africa & African Digital Media Awards 12-13 July 2022 Virtual Digital Media LATAM & LATAM Digital Media Awards 16-18 Nov 2022 Mexico City Digital Media India & Indian Digital Media Awards 08-10 Mar 2022 Virtual Digital Media Asia &
1. Christians are to be Ambassadors for the Kingdom of God The world and its media have various views about Christianity and how Christians are supposed to live. But many of those views are NOT based upon the Bible or the practices of real Christians. Do you know that Christians
Henry Ford Allegiance Health and Medical Group: 517-205-4740 Henry Ford Hospital and Medical Group: 313-916-1602 Henry Ford Kingswood: 248-691-4953 Henry Ford Macomb Hospital: 586-263-2380 Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital: 248-325-2200 Henry Ford Wyandotte Hospital: 734-246-7108 Should your concerns remain after contacting the Care .
HFKH Henry Ford Kingswood Hospital HFLS Henry Ford Leadership System HFMC Henry Ford Medical Center(s) Fairlane (FRL) Sterling Heights (SH) West Bloomfield (WB) HFMG Henry Ford Medical Group HFMG physicians Members of the HFMG multi-specialty, salaried group practice, one of HFHS's BUs HFMH or HFMH-CT Henry Ford Macomb Hospital HFMH-WC Henry .
sophe.pope@henry.k12.ga.us Sophe Pope District 4 pam.nutt@henry.k12.ga.us Dr. Pam Nutt District 1 annette.edwards@henry.k12.ga.us Annette Edwards District 5 joshua.hinton@henry.k12.ga.us Josh Hinton Board Chair - District 2 Henry County Schools 2020-2021 Calendar EXPECT Exceptional maryelizabeth.davis@henry.k12.ga.us Mary Elizabeth Davis .
Curriculum Vitae . Clifford Glenn Christians . University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign . Telephone (217) 333-1549 . Sharon Bracci and Clifford Christians, eds. Moral Engagement in Public Life: . Christians and T. Cooper, chapter 5, “The Search for Universals,” pp. 55-68. 2. nd. ed. forthcoming. Clifford Christians, Theodore Glasser .
6.5 Henry Fayol and Principles of Management Henry Fayol is considered as the Father of Administrative Management theory. Henry Fayolfocuses on the development of broad administrative principles which are applicable to general and higher managerial levels. He was a French industrialist. The observations of Henry Fayol on the principles of .
6 Introduction to Linguistic Field Methods :, We have also attempted to address the lack of a comprehensive textbook that p.resents the rudiments of field methodology in all of the major areas of linguistic inquiry. Though a number of books and articles dealing with various aspects offield work already exist esee for example Payne 1951, Longacre 1964, Samarin 1967, Brewster 1982, and other .
