theo|digital

The first 55 pages, as I was printing it.  There are 153 pages total.

Well, it’s been a difficult road. I’ve been on a brief hiatus from the thesis for about five days—last Friday I turned in a full draft for my advisor’s editing pen. I’m afraid it’ll be rather torn up when it comes back. Instead of feeling relief as I expected, it was probably a low point, feeling like much of my 135 pages of writing was actually rather poor.

I’m feeling a little bit better now (though I haven’t gotten it back yet), although I’m acutely aware of two mental lists: one of edits in each chapter that must happen before I turn in a final draft—things like missing paragraphs, errors, footnote corrections, etc. The other is on general content—sections that I think could use an overhaul. The problem here is that this list is pretty long. I could probably edit and re-write for about a year before I felt like there was stuff here worthy of turning in.

Instead, I think I’m going to have to do the hard work of settling for something that doesn’t meet my expectations, or better put—lower some unrealistic expectations. This is my first attempt at answering a fairly complex question: how does scripture exist and work in a digital context? There are a variety of approaches, and inexhaustible list of questions, and not a few unprovable conjectures. As I hope to continue thinking about these questions for a long time, I’d rather think about this as an opening stab.

Because my advisor (who has enough responsibilities poured on him that I’m not sure how even finds time to read) doesn’t have my copy back yet, there’s not a lot I can complete from my editing lists until I get it back. Even so, I finished writing the short personal introduction today and this afternoon plan on generating a good draft of my bibliography (from Zotero) —something I didn’t include in my draft.

Final copies to readers will probably have to be done by 29 Oct around 2:30pm—Scot McKnight is only around on campus on Thursday afternoon until about this time, and I need to make sure he has enough time to read it.

First, the rhetoric on this one has me mad.  One commentator calls the award “wicked and ignorant.”  She asserts that the award is a “great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA–no conservatives need apply. This is the way of the world, and so what? Life isn’t for prizes.”

Good thing this is an Op-Ed and not on the news page–it wouldn’t pass fact check.  Sure, it’s okay if she doesn’t like Al Gore’s prize.  And we wonder too why Reagan never got awarded one.  But she doesn’t mention that many of the candidates are relatively neutral in political affiliation (2006 – an economist  2004 – a zoologist ), but that recipients that are political in modern decades include iconic Republican Henry Kissinger and Conservative Party David Trimble (UK) in 1998.

More importantly:

Beyond the incivility and blithe assumptions of either corruption or idiocy (the ad hominem is always unbecoming), there is a intensely forest-for-the-trees like understanding that is missing from many of the critics.  Maybe we can understand what it is by watching the short interview of Committee Member Geir Lundestad explain the award:

Interview about the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize (8 minutes)

Lundested official’s official Nobel statement includes the following:

“he has produced a new global climate”
“changing the international climate IS a concrete achievement” (emphasis his)
“we have been trying to support these ideals for 118 years”

On the objection that Obama’s award is premature:

“we have gone over these arguments… they are very obvious.” … “there are the obvious counter-arguments” “but he presents this wonderful agenda and we feel we should support him.” ” We have been over these arguments many many times, obviously”

The reality is that discourse, covenant, promise, words with intent… *are* real action. Let’s please stop saying things like “just words.” Words are real action. We believe this daily in big and small things: every time we say a wedding vow or give a hug or sign a form to volunteer at a school. In systems of nations and families and trade networks, speech-acts have a multiplying real effect. The Nobel committee understands this.

What they might have missed is that there is a portion of the public that artificially separates “words” and “action.” They’re missing it.

The surprise at the award is entirely justified. It makes sense that some would be concerned. (Nicholas Kristof represents). Many (but not all) of the awards in the past seem to be given more as “lifetime achievement awards.” But as the committee has explained, this is was not Nobel’s intent for the prize. And I hope maybe their action (which, case in point: was ‘no more’ than words), helps us unite these ideas of communication and action in more thoughtful light.

I love Mad Men, so I couldn’t pass this by. (originally saw it on Paste)