Comments on: Flickering Pixels – Group Blogging Project – Chapter 8

By: SCBubba

SCBubba — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:21:15 +0000

Adam, I also keep having reactions to his premise of medium. Maybe not as strongly as what you are describing.

For me, I sometimes agree with him about the medium being the cause or motivation for some of the culture. And sometimes I think he's stretching it too much. In the end, I may have to chalk it up to human nature making it hard to see or acknowledge the things that do shape culture. When something that intends to shape or change us is blatantly obvious, it often fails in its efforts, or is at least strongly resisted. The things that are slower or more subtly are often more successful at changing/shaping…

Either way, I think most of the illustrations he has are good and make for some really great discussions.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:59:03 +0000

That's an interesting perspective Aaron because I went through something similar. When we moved from New Jersey to Florida, my wife and I thought it would be easy for us to find a new church. It wasn't and after awhile we became complacent and then awhile after that Sunday mornings became a time of Meet The Press and sleeping in late. Nearly 7 years passed. I never stopped believing. However, when some new acquaintances (who are now dear friends) invited us to church (interestingly enough a church we had visited 7 years earlier that was meeting in a movie theater and now had their own facility) and I went, it was totally a light switch moment. It was like, "Man, look what I've been missing these last 7 years!"

By: dewde

dewde — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:51:40 +0000

The question of light-switch or dimmer is only relevant because of our perspective tainted by our linear motion through time. To the perspective of chief importance, it's a non-issue. C. S. Lewis, "The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. But if ye are trying to leap on into eternity, if ye are trying to see the final state of all things as it will be (for so ye must speak) when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real, then ye ask what cannot be answered to mortal ears. Time is the very lens through which ye see—small and clear, as men see through the wrong end of a telescope—something that would otherwise be too big for ye to see at all. That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn't is itself Freedom. They are the lens." "How long could ye bear to look (without Time's lens) on the greatness of your own soul and the eternal reality of her choice?" peace|dewde http://dewde.com

By: dewde

dewde — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:53:50 +0000

I'm with you, Adam. He's taking a mighty peculiar route around the mountain and I'm not convinced he'll get me to the top before he's through. peace|dewde http://dewde.com

By: dewde

dewde — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:50:59 +0000

The question of light-switch or dimmer is only relevant because of our linear motion through time. To perspective of chief importance, it's a non-issue.

C. S. Lewis, "The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. But if ye are trying to leap on into eternity, if ye are trying to see the final state of all things as it will be (for so ye must speak) when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real, then ye ask what cannot be answered to mortal ears. Time is the very lens through which ye see—small and clear, as men see through the wrong end of a telescope—something that would otherwise be too big for ye to see at all. That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn't is itself Freedom. They are the lens."

"How long could ye bear to look (without Time's lens) on the greatness of your own soul and the eternal reality of her choice?"

peace|dewde
http://dewde.com

By: dewde

dewde — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:50:59 +0000

The question of light-switch or dimmer is only relevant because of our linear motion through time. To perspective of chief importance, it's a non-issue.

"How long could ye bear to look (without Time's lens) on the greatness of your own soul and the eternal reality of her choice?"

peace|dewde
http://dewde.com

By: Adam_S

Adam_S — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:24:08 +0000

So I am a bit behind in finishing this chapter. But something crystallized for me in it. I have been having a hard time with this book, but the longer I go on the more I agree. The problem is that I keep reacting strongly against his origin issues. So I agree that many people have a shorter attention span. I agree that images, video and print all communicate in different ways and there are different uses for each and using the wrong one often has unintended consequences. But I just don't completely buy into these differences as being primarily about media.

Instead what I think what I am feeling is that Hipps is talking primarily about culture and using the concept of media to describe it. I really appreciate that he has started talking about the weakness of print as well as images now. But I am not sure what would really be different about this book if he changed the term print with Modernism and images with Post-modernism.

I guess I keep needing to read further to get to the point where I can really "get" what he is talking about. But I think I am still unconvinced.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:14:14 +0000

It's been my experience through people that I know (especially men in my small-group) that it would seem those that weren't raised in the church were more likely to have a "light-switch" conversion whereas those of us with Christian-family backgrounds may have experienced more of a "dimmer-switch" conversion.

However, I can distinctly remember a few years ago when I had realized how far I had strayed from God. It was clearly a "light-switch" moment. (More light a lightning-switch moment, really.) More importantly, I believe it's important to keep all this discussion in context. Salvation is salvation, no matter what road an individual walked or how they surrendered their life to Christ. (In other words, those of us with dim-switches don't have any less a valuable a testimony than those without.)

By: Phillip Gibb

Phillip Gibb — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:52:34 +0000

This is a hard one for me. Saying that conversion happens somewhere in a process is the same as saying that you get to heaven by some amount of good deeds over bad. I mean how far in the process does the light get bright enough to allow you in heaven? What measurement of brightness does the dimmer have to at when u die so that you get into heaven – come on.
True, Christianity is a journey, growing in your relationship with Christ is a process.
But as for when you get into heaven? When you confess with your mouth that's when.
I do agree that, when it comes to today's culture, that we need to concentrate on the relationship part – because things are just more fuzzy and less measurable.

By: dewde

dewde — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:27:46 +0000

Excellent work, Jay. And what a terrific chapter too.

I was just talking to a friend about this earlier in the week. I really have no idea when I was "saved" and for me it wasn't all that long ago! I know when I started calling myself a Christian. I know when I started "following Jesus".

But I also know that I had an SSE (Significant Spiritual Event) where I believe that God interacted with me physically and profoundly in a Paul-esque manner. But that didn't happen until after. It wasn't until I put down my arms, so to speak and turned towards God and started walking in his direction that I was really knocked off my horse.

peace|dewde