Facebook as Digital 'Crack'

Daniela Elser wrote an interesting column on Facebook a couple of weeks ago (Sydney Morning Herald 9-10 Oct). In it she seems to put her finger on a number of reasons for the popularity of Facebook around the world:

• It offers us the possibility of reinventing ourselves or presenting a specific crafted image of ourselves to our Facebook friends.
• It has changed the way we interact with others.
• It offers a sense of connection, or in Elser's words, it offers a "digital inoculation against any creeping sense of disconnection or isolation".
• It offers an opportunity to "socialise in solitude" (to quote Aaron Sorkin the writer of 'The Social Network' which is the story of Facebook's creation - see the trailer below).  
• It allows us to be hyper-focused on constructing hyper-elaborated identities.
• We live more distracted lives because of our constant checking and updating of our profiles. 

 Daniela Elser writes:

One of the most intoxicating things about Facebook is the possibility it represents for reinvention. From our words, to our image, to our friends, Facebook lets us control the public perception of ourselves with an iron fist that would surely please even Kim Jong-il.

Sadly, while recognising that Facebook is allowing us to do this to ourselves, she fell short of suggesting ways that we might use it responsibly (like any drug).  However, she does recognise that Facebook "...speaks to an underlying human need to feel like we are the centre of things".  She cites recent survey research that indicates that 48% of Facebook and Twitter users check or update their profiles from bed on a daily basis either during the night or first thing in the morning.  This comes hot on the heels of other research that shows that addiction to the Internet is a problem for 25% of young adults at University.    

I love technology, and so I know just how strong the urge is to present false images of myself, to be less than honest about my heart's desires at times, particularly the desire to be liked and respected. I think the essence of the problem is a subtle difference between the word 'need' and 'desire'.  Elser suggests that we have a 'need' to feel that we are the centre of things, worthy of attention, needing to be admired, liked etc. While I have no doubt that we have a human need to be loved, I don't accept that we have a 'need' to be at the centre of the world.  This is a 'desire', and it is one that is in opposition to God's desire for us to give him first place in our lives. This is the desire that he created us for. Our desire is to be for him not for the promotion of self.

What a different view the Bible gives in Romans 12:1-8 of what we should desire, and what true community looks like when its members centre their lives on God. Rather than spending our lives feeding a need to be recognised, to be liked and to be admired, we are called to give ourselves to a life of sacrifice - "living sacrifices". We are not to be conformed to the patterns of the world. Rather, because of God's mercy to us we are "not to think of (ourselves) more highly than (we) ought". As God's children in Christ, we have been given gifts from God due to his grace and mercy, not for ourselves, but to fulfil our part as "..one body in Christ, and individually members one of another".  Whatever good gifts God has given are to be used for the good of the Body of Christ and the glory of God.

Is Facebook bad? No, I don't think so. It is a social networking site that can be used to sustain relationships and maintain contact with friends around the world. But it does have the potential to become an addiction and to shift our focus too much to our own sense of self worth and the need to create an identity that is pleasing to us and others. This is not ultimately something which will be for our good.
 
Other posts and resources

Daniela Elser column 'Hooked on the digital crack of Facebook', Sydney Morning Herald (HERE)

Previous post on 'Late Night Habits and the Mental Health of Young Adults' (HERE)

'The Social Network' (HERE)

Marriage As Covenant Not Contract

I've just returned from the wedding of two former members of the New College community. It is a Christian residential college at the University of New South Wales. Every part of the wedding ceremony was a wonderful reminder of the fact that marriage is not simply a legal agreement between two people. The message delivered by the preacher, the words of Scripture that were read, the vows taken and the promises made by the young couple, all pointed to the fact that they were not looking simply to sign a simple legal contract of marriage.

Many people enter marriage today as a way to sort out the legalities of a long-term relationship and in order to give shape to their obligations and rights in the relationship. Of course, for those who choose to enter into a legally binding marriage outside of a church marriage, there may well be little more intent than this, and even this limited function has some social benefit. But the Bible teaches that marriage was meant to be so much more. As Gordon Menzies reminds us in an article he wrote for an edition of Case Magazine on the theme 'Family Foundations', marriage is meant to be a covenant between a man and a woman, not simply a legal agreement that entrenches rights, obligations and responsibilities. He wrote:

"...the starting point for the covenant understanding of marriage is not the gains from marriage, but the relationship between man and wife, the ‘inner commitment’ of the couple to each other in self-giving love (Greek: agape), involving openness to each other - emotionally, psychologically, sexually and spiritually. This is a relationship for life: as the Anglican marriage service puts it “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part”. An exclusive sexual relation is central to this relationship, primarily as an outward expression of the inner commitment of the couple. In this understanding, any productive ‘gains’ from marriage, and even procreation, are marital ‘goods’, by-products of the relationship, and are shared by the couple on the basis of their love one for the other. Bargaining over the gains is completely alien to this model. Moreover, the marriage would still be valid if there were no productive gains (or even losses), or if one of the partners experiences a net loss of real income through the marriage. The marriage is defined solely in terms of the relationship between the partners, and not at all in terms of the ‘gains’ and how they are shared."

Menzies reminds us that the Bible stresses that marriage promotes a number of things, including relationship (Genesis 2:8), procreation (Genesis 4), social order (Genesis 2:24), sexual intimacy (1 Cor. 7:3-7) and the provision of 'material goods' (to use an economics term) that meet the needs of the couple (Gen 1 and 2). But unlike a simple contract, the marriage covenant involves a solemn promise by a man and woman before God, that reflects their ‘inner’ being, not just the assent of their minds.

As Kim and Lachlan embarked on marriage today, there was no doubt that they were entering into a covenant relationship before their God. There was no doubt that this was an unqualified commitment, and that in their vows they were committing themselves to a relationship that they hope will survive all the circumstances of life (‘for better, for worse, for richer or poorer’). This is not relationship where the expectation is that it can be cancelled as soon as one of them fails to fulfil their obligations. This is a relationship that is a reflection or echo of the relationship between God and his people (Ephesians 5:29-32). The implication is that the marriage covenant demands complete faithfulness of the man and the woman irrespective of the material good that they receive from the relationship. This is a tough requirement not to be entered into lightly. In contrast, the marriage contract can easily be seen as something that can be broken as soon as rights and obligations are not seen as being met. The Christian marriage is until death us do part, whereas the marriage contract is until either of us has had enough.

I praise God for the precious gift of marriage and young men and women like Kim and Lachlan who enter it with their eyes open and the highest expectation that in this precious institution they might bring honour and glory to God.

To Exclude or to Embrace: Considering 'otherness'

Our next issue of Case magazine will consider how we relate to ‘the other’. As I ask in my introduction to the magazine, is this just a philosophical and theological discussion to keep scholars busy? Clearly, we see it as a topic of concern to all people. In his influential book 'Exclusion and Embrace' (which I mentioned in a previous post here), theologian Miroslav Volf shows just how important the question of otherness is to all of life. Understanding and living with others, is not simply a matter of accommodating diversity. He suggests our approach to the other should reflect the character and actions of our God revealed in the person of Christ. Volf challenges us to embrace ‘the other’ in the light of God’s giving of himself on the cross—this includes our enemies. We need to adjust our very identities to ‘make space’ for the other. We have four wonderful articles that address the theme.

1. Otherness and Continental Philosophy

Matheson Russell begins the issue for us by outlining the treatment of otherness in the field of continental philosophy. While much of philosophy has traditionally centred on the self, taking its cue from Descartes’ famous thinking ‘I', a concern for the other has emerged in more recent philosophical and theological works. Russell guides us through the work of key thinkers such as G. W. F. Hegel, Emmanuel Levinas, and Hannah Arendt, reflecting on the lingering presence of biblical themes in this literature. Emmanuel Levinas set the scene with his observation that the Western world tends to privilege the ‘same’ over the ‘other’. In such a world, the other counts only to the extent that he or she can be made the same, leading to behaviours of acquisition and domination. In Levinas’ work, says Russell, ‘the ethical demand of the other is the demand to let the other be, to break off the struggle for dominance…in short, to lay down arms and accept peace with the ‘other’ without reducing them to the ‘same’. Russell concludes by drawing on the work of Karl Barth, and by reflecting on the need ‘to relate to God as the absolute Other’, accepting his gift of grace and recognising Christ as Lord and Saviour.

2. A Theological View of Otherness

Moving from philosophy to theology, Linden Fooks asks what we can learn from Miroslav Volf. One of the pressing questions of our time is whether religion is a cause or a cure of cultural conflict. Volf’s answer, as Fooks shows us, is not ‘no religion’, but rather more, what he calls ‘thick religion’. His is a call to engage more seriously with the peace-making resources at the very heart of the Christian faith. This will require for Christians ‘an all-encompassing change of loyalty, from a given culture with its gods to the God of all cultures’ (Volf, p.40). Embrace—the theme of Volf’s major work, is not mere cheap reconciliation, but will require deep and costly forgiveness. Volf’s theological exploration of otherness and reconciliation has had an impact around the world.

3. Otherness and Disability

In our third article, Kirk Patston explores the issue of otherness and disability. Do we live in a land of ‘apartheid’, in which the disabled are systematically ‘othered’? Patston helpfully draws on the emerging field of disability theology to explore the portrayal of disability in the Old Testament. He asks and answers a number of fundamental questions. How can we reconcile the Bible’s call to welcome the alien and stranger with the way it appears to render certain groups, such as people with disabilities, as ‘other’? How are we to interpret the Old Testament’s complex portrayals of disability? Do postmodern critiques of these texts really fit? Patston reminds us that in the Old Testament ‘we do not meet the consistent, autonomous, rational adult that Enlightenment thinkers may have imagined. But we meet a humanity that is real.’

4. What it Means to Become ‘the other’

In our final article, Susannah Macready provides an insight into what it might mean to live with ‘the other’ and thus become ‘the other’. Her experience in entering the deaf community offers a humbling example of how we can experience otherness and yet find embrace. Her reflections on becoming an alien - becoming ‘hearing’ - are a timely reminder that relating to the other needs to be construed ‘less like an act of charity…and more like the initiation of diplomatic relations with another country, a country with an enviable language, culture and heritage.’

This is a challenging topic for all of us who live in pluralistic societies. How easy do we find it to embrace our neighbours, let alone our enemies? And in a more practical sense, how does this discussion challenge us as citizens as we collectively take responsibility for aliens and strangers. Does it inform our attitude to so-called boat people? What about the severely disabled, the homeless, the drug addict, the paedophile and so on? What does my understanding of the divine self-donation of the Cross mean for the construction of my identity and my relationship with the ‘other’ under the varied conditions of life? The writers in this issue have issued many challenges, I hope that many will read the issue and consider how to respond.

If you'd like to receive Case four times per year you can become a CASE Associate for just $55 per year. Single or multiple copies of specific issues of the magazine are also available.

The loss of mealtime: Is it important?

A survey of 1,011 Australian families commissioned by food manufacturer Continental found that 22% eat together four times a week or less and 43% of parents find it hard to make time for family meal times. The survey also indicated that teenagers were less likely to eat with their family. The survey showed 77% of respondents' families ate together either every night or five or six nights a week.

Dr Rebecca Huntley, who reviewed the survey, commented that:

"This study, which is the first of its kind in Australia, shows that parents already appreciate the value of family meal times and are very willing to invest their time, but for many the pressures and distractions of modern living present major barriers.”


Dr Huntley indicated that research suggests the optimum frequency for reaping benefits is for families to share meal times at least five times a week, Dr Huntley said.

The question is should we be concerned about this. One commentator on radio suggested that we should focus on the 75% who do eat together and added that when she gets home from work she just wants her kids to “leave her alone.” But others have suggested that surveys like this probably over-estimate family estimates and reflect lifestyle trends in this busy world that show reduced importance being placed on families eating together.

What is to be lost if families don’t eat together? Plenty in my view:

• opportunities for parents to help children learn basic table manners;
• monitoring and education about good nutrition;
• modelling how people interact, debate, question, share etc;
  
• opportunities to share what is going on in each other’s lives;
• a chance to share anecdotes, family history and stories;
• opportunities to share knowledge about all sorts, including matters of faith, morality and so on;
• a break in the busyness of life to allow space for children (and adults) to share what is on their mind – their worries, hopes, fears, expectations, joys.

As Christian parents there would seem to be an even more critical need for meals where prayers of thankfulness and need are shared and where we continue the process of nurturing our children’s faith. This is very much the sentiment that Moses expressed in Deuteronomy 6, when he commanded the Israelites to learn and observe the commands, statutes and laws of the Lord so that they and their children might fear the Lord as long as they should live.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house
and on your gates (Deut 6:4-9).

In my experience as a father and grandfather mealtimes are one of those precious times when we stop and talk; when we have time to open ourselves up, to share the deepest things in our hearts and to share how God has been at work in our lives. Of course mealtimes aren't the only opportunities for families to talk and share their lives, others include bedtime rituals, play, shared hobbies etc. But if mealtimes are under pressure in families one suspects that other opportunities are also being lost. I’d welcome your thoughts on this.

You can read the newspaper report here.