Stones Cry Out

Matt, you have a love-hate relationship with Mr. Sullivan. :-)

Actually, I don't listen to music much anymore. Funny because I used to be in a band, used to mix sound, own a record label, manage bands, and am now a worship leader.

If I could blog from the car to class, I would do that though...

There's not much more to say with respect to your older post, except to point you to this post on Churchianity (follow the link in the comments to Spurgeon's 1868 article on the same phenomenon.)

With respect to the general idea of subcultures... it's not a new phenomenon. Hundreds of years ago, you only interacted with the few dozen people you'd see on a regular basis, and they probably were a lot like you. Now, you still only interact with a few dozen people who are a lot like you, it just so happens that some of them are in different states and your interaction is mostly via e-mail, forums, or blogs. As we develop technology to allow wider interaction (ex: the internet), we also develop technology or uses of technology to narrow interaction to a group we agree with more (ex: personal blogs.)

The main differences are:

1) in this day and age, the few who want to interact with a broad spectrum of people can. For example, it's fairly easy for me to find people of different religious or political types with google, so if I want to interact with such people, I can choose to.

2) even those who don't particularly want to interact with others will likely to be exposed to them one way or another. For example, if you're online talking about sports or video games, you're very likely to run into at least the occasional person from another worldview. Chances are, you'll even form at least casual friendships with people whose ideas are very different from yours, given enough time. (This has happened a lot over at the DBB, where I met my wife. The Ethics & Commentary forum is quite active and quite diverse, but most of us have become friends in other contexts, so that when we discuss divisive issues we actually respect each other for the most part.)

It sound like Andrew is describing his dissatisfaction with his own environment.
The key word here is moderation. What's the difference between listening to the local radio station vs. satellite radio? News blogs vs. the nightly news? The difference is choice. Should we revert to gaining our information from one 30 minute evening news segment? If your politics are liberal, will your "world view" be challenged (at all) by watching ABC, NBC, CBS, etc...? If anything, the information/technology revolution assures a wider array of sources & opinions. In the past our choices for listening, reading or watching media were very limited and highly controlled. Are choice & access inherently unhealthy in and of themselves?

Subcultures are the subsets of society. People generally don't relate to each other on a large-scale basis, except through technology. We interact on a one to one or small group basis almost all of the time. Subcultures aren't the problem either.

Ipod's, cable, satellite radio, Blackberries, cell phones, the blogoshere - are not the problem. I believe that, in general, people will seek comfort and avoid pain. I believe that life outside of Christ consists of varying degrees of pain (spiritual, emotional) which we seek to avoid through distraction (from reality). Technology isn't the problem, the unregenerate human heart is the problem. The distractions listed above are simply a "fill-in-the-blank."

Fair points, but way too many Christians are immersed in technophile culture. It's not like getting saved will change the iPod user. The point Sullivan is making, and the point where I concur, is that we are now a society that is extremely fragmented. That is a bad thing. Also read the New Atlantis piece I quoted.

I agree that redemption (by itself) will not rescue the technophile from his/her narcissistic tendencies. Sanctification is more the focus. As the saved believer learns to submit to Christ and live in the reality of their position in Christ...
Thanks for the link to the NA article, I'm headed there now.

I agree with you on Sullivan. He's on the money only about half the time, but when he is, he's a very articulate spokesperson. The observation of the increasing state of isolation in our culture is on the money. I also like how he points out the "narrowing of our minds" in the sense that we are surrounding ourselves with only those whose opinions agree with - and reinforce - our own.

(His article in the Times prompted me to post this:http://plaidberry.blogspot.com/2005/02/isolationist-dot-com-culture.html)