Welcome to the desert of the real.

The moving forward in Hess’s book brought back flashes of an E-Crit Lab I took my last semester at UDM on Spatiality / Virtuality. I more impressed with Hess’s view of technology as a tool than I thought I would be. Barney Warf’s essay Compromising Positions in Cities in the Telecommunications Age (a favorite of Marcel) argues for integrating physical and mental aspects of humanity in regard to technology. While Warf (not Worf) makes sense on one level, I feel he takes it a bit too far when arguing that “bodies and cyberspace are shot through with each other.” (pg 59) Hess argues that although technology is instrumental, it is not necessarily impersonal. I hope you agree, because I have invested a part of my personality to the blog you’re reading.

Arguing for media & technology as instruments to be used and mastered in theological education certainly makes more sense than anything else I have heard. They must be engaged, because our culture is immersed in them, and accessed through them. They must be used, because they are the language that people are familiar with.

Hess is correct when she argues against theological learning being inherently relational and embodied, but we must be careful in our understanding of this. Theological learning is not inherently relational, but spiritual formation is, and if we dare divorce the two, we have abandoned our purpose for the former, and an important means to the latter. We must remain in community if we would remain balanced in our Christian lives. That community may be supplemented in any variety of ways, including technology and media, but neither of those offer community in and of themselves.

Beginning CE 505 & 506

I began reading Mary Hess Engaging Technology in Theological Education. I must admit I am a bit envious of her perspective. Her use of Parker Palmer's model for constructivist education, as with others, seems a bit naïve. Not that that the model is wrong, but the teaching process seems to require more. Hess is teaching at a seminary, which means that the people she is teaching have paid good money to hear her, and a majority have done at least some work in the same area. If nothing else, they have received a BA in something, so they have a basic level of competency.

Her students and readers, on the other hand, are far more likely to be dealing in much more random environments. So their pupils may or may not have any previous experience with the particular topic of the day. So prior to hearing their thoughts on a particular subject, you have to somehow provide them with a way to see the truth. I am not arguing for a return to the objectivist model, but perhaps we need to develop some sort of hybrid model with an eye to guiding or directing students as they move toward Subject/Object.

What I’m trying to say is that the constructivist model assumes that the subject is known. Everyone gathered is a knower. That is not necessarily correct. Under that particular model, a non-knower is unable to be engaged in learning, which is certainly not correct.

Still waiting

Class now begins again, so the week away from the nearly endless cycle of homework has ended. I’m looking forward to the term, academically, but dreading it for a lot of other reasons. If I don’t find work, it could be touch and go come September, which would mean it would be harder to take the 16 credits I need to set up a May 07 graduation.

Tonight summer soccer begins, and we’ll see how this year’s team will be. I love watching the kids develop over the summer, then into the season. It’s especially gratifying to see defenders develop, because I feel like I’ve had a part in their education. It’s actually a lot like Sparks, except for the whole verse learning & bible study part.