Banner
Calvinism, Eschatology, and the New Media PDF Print E-mail
Money, Love, Desire - The Good of Affluence
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, 04 January 2011 08:13

Jesus is the Lord of history, and this is why we don't need to be afraid of Twitter. Or Facebook. Or teenagers typing with their thumbs. Jesus is the Lord of history, which is why we don't need to worry about Google making us stupid.

Don't mistake me. Google does make many of us stupid, but only in the same way that libraries have made us stupid for many centuries. Libraries make a handful of people really wise, and provide many others with artificial props for their footnotes.

Everywhere the human race goes, it drags a bell curve around with it. We put on airs because of where we are on the existing curve (or we feel bad because of where we are on it), but we fail to recognize that a blue collar auto mechanic today is working with sophisticated electronics that would have completely stumped Aristotle on one of his good days. One half of all medical doctors graduated in the lower half of their class, right?

We live in a time of tremendous innovation, development, and apparent chaos. There are many opportunities to worry about it all, and so I want to lay my cards on the table, and talk about why I am excited about the future. This is going to sound funny, but I am excited about the future because I am a postmillennialist. And I am a postmillennialist because I am a Calvinist who believes that the sovereign God over all things is truly, inexhaustibly, and fiercely good. He keeps His promises.

We also need to remember that the eschatological future promised by the prophet Isaiah, and the future that was shaped by industrial revolution, and will continue to be shaped by the digital revolution, are the same future. I don't believe in an invisible spiritual future, shaped by the Holy Spirit, full of sweetness and light, and an actual historical future shaped by the Devil, Halliburton, the Illuminati, and Murphy's law. The world, this world, is presently going where Jesus is taking it. Be wise, but stop worrying.

Part of being wise is that we do not forget the doctrine of sin. Sin is radical and deep, and capable of many cultural grotesqueries. We see them all the time, and we read about them all the time. Welcome to the spiritual war. Belief that we will win the war is not a denial of the reality of that war. My optimism is not of the kind that denies the existence of the battle. My optimism is of the kind that maintains that we are winning the battle.

To change the metaphor, to believe that the car is gassed up, running fine, and on the right road, does not keep the kids from squabbling sinfully in the back seat.

This means that every new development presents us with opportunities to sin, and, in a sinful world, the initial impulse is to sin. Wealth gotten by old-fashioned labor is sustained. Wealth gotten the frothy way, dissipates quickly (Prov. 13:11)

And so here is my central thesis: technology in all its forms is a type of wealth. The Bible contains no warnings about technology as such, but is crammed with warnings about the bias of wealth. Which way does wealth set us up? The Bible says that the wealthy are tempted to hubris, self-sufficiency, lack of concern for the poor, oppression, and the rest of that sorry lot. Wealth is a good thing, but it brings temptations. A lot of wealth is a lot of a good thing, but it brings with it a lot of temptations.

Say a man comes into wealth, and the first thing he does is join three of the swankiest country clubs. Not a good harbinger. The same thing is true of the guy who gains his wealth, and who runs off to the inner city to join a new monastic community. That's a bad sign too.

It does not profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul in the process (Matt. 16:26). This remains true even if the world is in the process of gaining the world, but loses its soul on the way. Wealth is not a substitute savior. It is a good thing, a creational good, and it is one which we are tempted to set up as an idol (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5). Until the resurrection, wealth is a good thing which always tends to distract us from our love for Christ, and the task at hand.

Now, what we are seeing with the multitude of silly applications of Facebook, and Twitter, and music downloads, and research with Google books, and every new app you can think of, is the response of the noveau riche to windfall weath -- a response that is as old as dirt. There is nothing whatever that is new about this. There is nothing new under the sun.

We have always had worriers. Plato worried about the written word. At the birth of the modern era, others worried about the typeset word. Now we worry about the digitized word. And, let it be said, the worriers always have a point. There are always examples of folly that they can point to, and they are not making it up. But the fact that you are not making up the bad examples does not mean that you are fitting those bad examples into the right paradigm of interpretation.

A good example of an erudite worrier would be Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death. But for every book like that, given the propensity of Calvinists to worry needlessly, I would recommend that you read three like Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You, Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies, and Ridley's The Rational Optimist. Why should Calvinists worry? In the collision between the sovereignty of Jesus in history, and the influence of sin in history, sin is the certain loser.

Now some will object that the books I have cited are not by believers. And I will point out in reply that things have gotten really bad when unbelievers can see what Jesus is doing more accurately than believers can. When unbelievers by common grace are reading history right side up, why should we reject that in favor of believers who are reading their Bible upside down?

We worry about the course of history because we are not in control of it, and we like to pretend that this means no one is in control of it. But this follows not. Jesus is the Lord of history. He is the Lord of this.

This will end well. It does not mean that everything ends well for everybody, but simply means that folly become apparent over time. In the long run, stupidity never works. You complain that some stupid teenager is exilarated because he has 28 superficial "friends" on Facebook. Okay, that's dumb, but how is it different from our practice of writing old-fashioned letters to a mortal enemy, making sure the letter begins with a term of endearment, "Dear . . ." Dear?

Keeping moving, people. Nothing to see here. Nothing new here. Nothing new under the sun. Some are wise, and many are (comparatively) foolish. The only question before us now is whether or not we will be among the wise or the foolish. Carping criticism from outside, from the Unabomber cabin, is not an effective response. It is not wise -- even if you are gracious enough for it to be a Wendell Berry cabin instead.

Jesus is the Word, and by His Incarnation He has sanctified the right use of words for all time. The Internet has given us a torrent of words -- what else is new? And the fact that the torrent has increased so much should fill us with a sense of exhilaration. Our responsibility as people of the Word is to give ourselves to the study and practice of how all this can be used wisely.

If your use of Twitter is limited to informing all your followers that you are rummaging in the fridge for some Dr. Pepper at two a.m., then sure, quit that. But suppose you tell your followers that poverty and shame come to the one who refuses instruction, what now? How is that an abuse? It is a godly word.

The constant and ever present temptation in the Church is the gnostic temptation of locating sin in the stuff, sin in the matter, sin in the wealth, sin in the technology . . . instead of locating it where it belongs, in the heart of man.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Rob Steele  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:55 am
Like.
Doug Sowers  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:07 am
Really like!
Daniel Foucachon  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:52 am
"Like" and "Recommend" and "Tweet" and "Amen"
Daniel Foucachon  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:53 am
Postmillennially, will Facebook "like" be replaced with "amen"?
Michael Duenes  - Like, and wrong on Postman  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:00 am
Good thoughts all, but you are wrong to characterize Postman simply as a "worrier" of any sort. He is simply a man who was trying to ask good questions, so that our reflections on the use of technology would be wise and focused. Further, there's a problem in saying that "sin is not in the stuff" without a frank acknowledgement that technological mediums are not neutral. It's not a question so much of what a kid writes on Facebook, but THAT he writes on Facebook. This is what McCluhan and Postman were rightly trying to discuss. This does not mean that Jesus will go without the victory, but it does mean that Postman was very helpful in getting us to ask the right questions. He, too, like your other cited authors, can help us think wisely and truthfully about technology.
don jones  - Re: Like, and wrong on Postman  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:19 am
That one writes on Facebook or Twitter is neither here nor there. It can be used for good or evil. Technology is neither good nor evil -- only people are. It is how we use technology that determines whether it is good or evil.

I think one difference Postman is trying to make is between knowledge and information. And Doug is echoing that sentiment. Too many in our day confuse information for knowledge, and that is a problem.
Tim  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:07 am
Excellent post! Thank you.
don jones  - Re: Like, and wrong on Postman  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:22 am
That one writes on Facebook or Twitter is neither here nor there. It can be used for good or evil. Technology is neither good nor evil -- only people are. It is how we use technology that determines whether it is good or evil.

I think one distinction Postman is trying to make is between knowledge and information. And Doug is echoing that sentiment. Too many in our day confuse information for knowledge, and that is a problem.
John Simmons  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:33 am
Props for the Wendell Berry cabin.
Tim Enloe  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:16 am
It's true that, as Don Jones notes, technology is neither good nor evil, people are. The saying "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," is usually the example raised for this point, and it is true as far as it goes.

But, echoing Michael Duenes, this is a superficial look at the issues. The question is not "Is Google good or evil," but "How does Google alter our perceptions of and interactions with the world?"

Postman is not alone in noting, quite rightly, the non-neutrality of technology. It is empirically provable that couch potatoes are far worse at rational thought than habitual readers. It is empirically provable that kids who value video games over books have stunted intellectual and emotional lives.

Stephen Carter, in Civility, has rightly pointed out that the advent of the telephone and the railway fundamentally altered - or rather, abolished - many good social conventions of civility. Others have rightly argued that gunpowder destroyed Medieval chivalry. Plutarch rightl argued in his Life of Marcellus that the Greeks deliberately limited their technological progress because they saw that down the line too much technology would lead to people being cogs in a mechanistic world. And, yes, Plato was correct in the important sense that total reliance on the written word eventually breaks down the memory.

So it's not as simple as noting that technology is neither good nor evil. The questions are bigger than that.
Tim Enloe  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:18 am
Nevertheless, comma, this is an excellent post not just in terms of its balance, but in terms of its ability to start a very much needed discussion.
Michael Duenes  - Love it  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:25 pm
I agree with Tim that this post is excellent and thought-provoking, even irking, which are the best kind, because they get under my skin and force me to think.

I might ask this question of Don: Would it be true to say, "That one uses the technology of in-vitro fertilization is neither here nor there. It can be used for good or evil"? I would argue that the answer is "no" because of the nature of that technology and what the use of it entails.
don jones  - Re: Love it  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:06 am
Except in-vitro fertilization is not a technology, but the application of technology. It nicely illustrates my point: Technology is only good or evil (or a blessing or not, as Doug mentions) based on how we use it.
Xon Hostetter  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:37 pm
But different times probably need to have different social conventions for civility. Conventions are for man, not man for conventions. If the railway abolished some of the pre-railway conventions that existed, then God can bring new ones for the post-railway world. That's the fundamental point of this post, isn't it? Faith in God to be God, to bring new life abundantly out of death. One world dies, another lives. Christ is the Lord of the dying and the living.
don jones  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:18 am
Clearly technology is not neutral, and I never argued that it was (nor would I). This is easier to see in art, eg, I could use Cubism to create Christian art, but it would be very difficult.

And I would argue that your illustrations again reinforce my contention that it is how we use and -- if I may say it this way -- worship technology that leads to the results you mention. Gunpowder did not destroy Medieval chivalry, but the way fallen men employed it undermined chivalry. Did gunpowder play an important role? Yes. Think of it this way: Gunpowder was likely a necessary cause, but not a sufficient cause. Chivalry could have been retained after the advent of gunpowder. A good example of that would be dueling with pistols, which retained much of chivalry.

My problem with your argument is that it says something outside people is responsible for our actions, from which it is but a small additional step to say our sin is caused by something outside ourselves.
Tim Etherington  - Me Too!  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:24 pm
This is going to sound funny, but I am excited about the future because I am a postmillennialist. And I am a postmillennialist because I am a Calvinist who believes that the sovereign God over all things is truly, inexhaustibly, and fiercely good. He keeps His promises.
Funny. That's precisely why I'm historic premil. :)

By the way, did this post get edited? The version I read in my RSS feed was shorter and slightly different, I thought. No matter, I really like it so far but now I'll have to read it again.

These are some good thoughts indeed. It seems too much of the American evangelical ethos has been influenced by pessimistic dispensational premillennialism. All that nonsense about polishing knobs on the Titanic and stuff.

That said, I do hope there won't be Facebook in the Millennium.
Doug Sowers  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:42 pm
@ Don; (Technology is neither good nor evil -- only people are.)


Instead of framing technology as either good or evil; how about calling it a blessing to mankind. I know I feel blessed to be able to drive a car, rather than walk. Sure evil men will twist and pervert, "just about anything", yet over all technology is benefiting man in whole host of positive ways, amen?
Michael Sacasas  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:32 pm
Hope, not pessimism, is a Christian virtue and it is true that for some a temptation to curmudgeonly worry is almost endemic. For these, this post is a healthy corrective.

That said, it may be gnostic not to reckon fully with our (good) embodied status and our subsequent embeddedness in the materiality of particular cultural contexts. We are shaped in significant ways (though not determined) by the habits and practices of our culture. Cultures that are constituted in part by the tools and technologies available to them.

This doesn't mean that the abstraction "technology" is evil, only that our use of some particular technologies may encourage ways of being in the world and with others, dispositions, and habits of thought that are not faithful to the call of Christian discipleship.

Recognizing how our tools shape us is one way to resist conformity to the patterns of this world. Assuming that tools are neutral only insures that we will be the tools of our tools as Thoreau feared. The "worry" of some may help us see more clearly how best to engage with our technologies faithfully and wisely.

Thanks for addressing this issue, it is one that deserves more attention than it tends to receive.
Tim Enloe  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:10 pm
Xon, sure, I agree with Pastor Wilson that God can bring new good things in new situations. I'm not disputing that point. All I was observing, in dialogue with another commenter, is that no, it is not accurate to claim that technology is neutral, and all depends on what people do with it. Technology, deriving from techne (art, skill) always takes preexisting material and alters it in some way for some pre-defined purpose. As such, technology always has effects, and the larger point that we need to grapple with whether we are talking about the invention of the wheel or the Internet is "What kind of thing is this, and what long-term effects is it likely to have on our view of and interaction with the world?"

Blogs can be used for good or ill (anyone remember how Pastor Wilson and several of his friends used to bitingly satire blogs qua blogs as mere venues of narcissism?), but the invention of the blog has done something much more fundamental to discourse in America than merely increase the scope of the voice of every village idiot. As an application of a particular type of media (the Internet), the blog has transformed the way that many people think about what discourse is, whose voice ought to be heard on any given subject, and what discourse in general can be expected to accomplish.

Of course Christ is king over all this and can bring good out of whatever arises - again, I don't dispute that. I'm only trying to take advantage of this latest opportunity that Pastor Wilson has given - and he's so very good at that - for interesting and important conversations to take place.
Jeremy Larson  Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:13 pm
Dear Doug, yet another gem. Thx.
Matt Weber  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:57 am
The comments are better than the post. Define two broad positions with regard to technology, optimistic and skeptical. The skeptical side is often guilty of diminishing or ignoring the benefits of technologies, but they do still recognize that there are benefits. The optimistic side, on the other hand, doesn't even seem to understand what it is the skeptical side is trying to say or why it should be treated with anything other than a handwave at those ever-complaining cranks.

Although, when you throw some weird millenial ideology into the mix, the optimistic side looks less optimistic and more fanatical. If you have some theory telling you that every development, of whatever kind, is good because of 'progress' or somesuch (this is not limited to millenial types), then perhaps you are no longer an effective judge of such things.
Tim Enloe  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:09 am
I remember an illustration Pastor Wilson gave in an NSA class 10 years ago about the relative value of genetic engineering. He said that we were not too far off from new parents being told by a doctor that "The bad news is your baby has [a genetic predisposition to some horrible disease.] The good news is that we can fix it for $50."

That's a great example of the benefit and the blessing of technology, and that example gives ample room for optimism. The skeptic, however, would rightly point out that the exact same technology that saves the baby a life of disability can be used to make "designer babies," as in the movie Gattaca.

The most surface-level response is to say, "Well, the genetic engineering technology itself is neither good nor evil; what matters is the moral intention behind the use of the technology." That is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. A more thoughtful - though also much more difficult - train of thought to follow out is the ontological / teleological analysis of genetic engineering: what kind of thing is it, what are its operating assumptions, where do those assumptions logically take one, and what are likely to be its long term effects not just in terms of saving lives but in terms of sociological and cultural effects?

That line of thought is, I submit, where the most discussion is needed.
Tim Enloe  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:10 am
The superficial nature of the "technology is not good or evil, people are" way of thinking was brought home to me by a discussion with a "rah, rah America" patriot kind of guy who insisted that gatling guns were wonderful because they are used to defend "the best nation on earth." It's like the other guy who, hearing the sound of jet fighters overhead said, "Ah, the sound of freedom."

What's wrong with these sentiments? Plenty, and we all need to think about these issues in much more detail and depth than we usually do.
Rob Steele  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:18 am
Tim, good points but I doubt we're quite equipped to perform the analysis you propose. Imagine asking Alexander Graham Bell whether he approves of Facebook. Which reminds me of this: http://is.gd/kaHAC.jpg
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:30 am
I suppose it would be impolite of me at this point to point out that chivalry was not organically sprung from the virtuous soil of the middle ages, but was a system devised by churchmen and other folk of good will to place a curb on the tendency of the warrior class (i.e., the people who could actually get their hands on weapons) to slaughter each other and abuse the peasantry?

Postmillennialism at work -- a culture just a couple of centuries removed from literal barbarism had some growing up to do.
Tim Enloe  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:09 am
Why aren't we equipped to perform the analysis, Rob? We have the tool of logic, don't we, to investigate the nature of things in detail and reason out their consequences? While it is true that people are not always rigorously logically consistent, and therefore it will not be a sufficient analysis to say that some technology X will necessarily and inescapably lead to social consequence Y, if we can perform this sort of analysis on X, it could help us to decide whether embracing X is likely to be a good thing.
Tim Enloe  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:17 am
It's not impolite, Jane, but I don't see how it's to the point. I don't know the precise argument that gunpowder destroyed chivalry (I read about it in a summary of another book that Dr. Leithart gave in one of his own books), but I can see the rough contours of the argument well enough. I.e., (1) gunpowder made possible removing the killer from his victim by enabling long range weaponry, and this in turn broke down chivalric customs of fighting face-to-face, remembering that one was fighting a fellow creature made in God's image, and (2) as gunpowder technology advanced in concert with other forms of mechanization, we eventually arrived at the trench warfare of World War I, and now, in our own day, in the video-game like killing of people thousands of miles away via pushing a button from the comfort of one's armchair while watching infra-red images of the battle on a TV screen.

So, was the invention and adoption of gunpowder a good thing? On the supposition that gunpowder is itself morally neutral and that it's only the people who use it who are either bad or good (a supposition the value of which I seriously question), we would have to say that we can't answer the question in any ontological / teleological way, because there are endless examples of the use of gunpowder, each of them standing alone as its own self-contained unit of meaning. On the other hand, if we examine (albeit with hindsight) the progression from the first primitive flintlocks to the use of robot planes remotely controlled from vast distances away by impersonal bureaucrats pushing buttons, surely we might want to re-ask the question about the goodness of gunpowder technology.
don jones  - Re: Gunpowder  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:23 pm
@Tim: But gunpowder had been around in China long before it came to the West, and their use was very different from the West's. Who decided to use gunpowder as a weapon to increase slaughter? Did the gun make them do it? Or their wicked, fallen nature?

So if gunpowder is evil or bad, using a gun in self defense is bad? The police are evil or wicked because they carry guns? The military is evil or bad because of their weapons? I think there are legitimate arguments about how we use technology in police and military, and technology can be seriously misused, eg, disguising mines as toys. But that discussion again comes back to our moral decisions. And I would fully agree with you that it is a discussion that is sorely needed. It is fallen humans who create the technology, but the technical capacity is inherent in creation.

My concern with your argument is that we could easily begin to point to things outside ourselves as the cause of evil or our evil actions rather than our fallen nature.
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:32 am
Tim, I'm really not disputing anything. I just wanted to make that point, because there's always a danger (even if that wasn't actually happening here) of chivalry being romanticized beyond what it was. If it was destroyed only to be replaced by nothing, or something worse, that's undoubtedly a bad thing. After all, it did serve its purpose to some degree, and had a good purpose.

Really, my comment was meant more as a "historical fun fact" than anything else.
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:35 am
Oh, perhaps my last sentence was ambiguous? I meant that the development of chivalry was necessary because the culture had some "growing up to do." Keith Mathison has argued that Postmillennialism can be understood, at least to some degree, as the doctrine of sanctification as applied to the church as a whole. The early medievals still "had some growing up to do" -- even though it was a highly Christianized society by 1000 AD, it was still pretty barbaric by our standards, so something like the code of chivalry was necessary to get the warrior class as a whole to understand that being the only guy around with a weapon didn't mean you could do whatever you wanted. I wasn't by any means suggesting that the invention of gunpowder was the "growing up."
Tim Enloe  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:39 am
That makes sense, Jane, the historical context of chivalry. So then, keeping that in mind, it's worth asking, as you imply, what has it been replaced with?
Tom Brainerd  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:57 am
On behalf of Halliburton employees current and former, I lodge a protest.
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:25 pm
I didn't imply anything replaced it. If I had any replacement in mind at all, I suppose it would be gunpowder-based war, which I'm not here to defend.

You're treating my comments as though I'm making an argument, when all I made was an historical observation, that was not really intended to forward any argument. Sometimes people really aren't arguing! Perhaps I did bring it on myself by deliberately throwing in an irrelevancy because I felt like talking about it, but I have observed, Tim, that you have a tendency to take nearly everything as a challenge to your own points.
Tim Enloe  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 12:35 pm
Jane, I'm not trying to argue, either. I'm trying to discuss. There's such a dearth of simple discussion in the Reformed world, and I've noticed that Pastor Wilson frequently opens up possibilities for discussion. That's all I'm trying to do. The appearance of argument comes from the fact that I'm taking entirely legitimate issue with the common point of view that technology itself has no moral implications. Remember that not all arguments are bad.
Charles Long  Wednesday, January 05, 2011 3:22 pm
Geez, Jane -- I wish you'd quit being so coy and get to your point already. :wink:
Jane Dunsworth  Thursday, January 06, 2011 7:31 am
I never suggested all arguments are bad, or that there shouldn't be an argument, let alone a discussion. You are making good points, but *I am not taking issue with them.* I was simply talking about something that came up, in a way tangential to the subject.

I said *I wasn't making an argument* so I wish you'd stop treating my thoughts as an argument! When I make one, you'll know! :D
Tim Enloe  Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:11 am
Sorry, Jane, I wasn't trying to "argue" with you, once I understood your historical point for what it was.

But, at any rate, it looks like this discussion is withering on the vine. Too bad. It's such an interesting topic, and one that would allow some much needed fleshing out of the premise Pastor Wilson put forward in his post - that postmillennialists should have "hope" for the future redemption even of things that seem to be bad right now.

I take such remarks from him as discussion starters, but it seems that too many others take them as moralistic maxims and leave them on that level. "Yeah, praise God for hope of victory!" Well, what does that mean? It's nice to say that the victory will come "some day," but if we in the "here and now" don't take concrete actions that we have reflected upon in detailed conversation with each other, a link in the chain that leads to "future victory" will not even be forged.
Gianni  Thursday, January 06, 2011 2:32 pm

Jane, do you have a book or two to recommend on chivalry? I am interested in what you were saying.

Regarding the main point of this good article, for what is worth, I think the general progression should be as follows (I don't have Facebook or Twitter in mind here, just a very general rule of thumb for all things new in technology). Read an optimistic book (to understand what the fuss is all about), read a pessimistic book (to understand the problems involved), and finally a couple of optimistic books designed to answer the pessimistic book (to get the postmil orientation).

Will S  - I loved this  Thursday, January 06, 2011 3:24 pm
Hi Pastor Wilson,

This was a fantastic post. Thank you.
Jane Dunsworth  Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:21 pm
Tim, agreed. Others have commented that the blog environment is itself to blame -- topics drop down the page and off the page so quickly that the expectation is that the discussion will die within a very few days. I agree that your points are excellent ones, worth discussing.

Gianni, what I referred to was something I learned recently from a CD lecture series called "The Great Courses: The High Middle Ages" taught by Philip Daileader of William and Mary College. Got it from my public library. :-) I don't really have more sources than that. I've just been dabbling in medieval history lately, and am very much the beginner.
Gianni  Saturday, January 08, 2011 2:28 am

Thank you Jane!