Openness (in tech, not theology)

Lately there's been a war of words. Well, more like a war over the definition of one word: open.
Part technical, part ideological, supporters of Open technologies go back to Unix/Linux, where people rebelled against the slow machinations of Microsoft and hoped to pool the talents of nerds across the globe to write software that benefited everyone rather than a single corporate interest.

The current etymological battle is between Apple & Adobe. Apple is famous for being the more closed, experience-controlling company in the industry (which also results in the easy, seamless experiences that attract so many customers). Adobe is known for selling bloated, expensive software to developers, and the slow, resource-hogging Flash plugin that we associate with laptop fans going to full blast and annoying pop-up advertisements. Adobe is acting like Apple has shunned it by not allowing Flash on the iPhone or iPad, however there is still not even a solid beta of flash for ANY phone, even Google's Nexus One. Apple also recently banned Flash & other 3rd party tools from the AppStore. Knowing that this is one of their last great cash cows, Adobe has responded that Apple has closed off an "open" technology and limited developer choice. Jim Whimpey responds here.

Clearly I am on the same side. For all the whining that goes on about Apple controlling the iPhone, the killer app has always been Safari. Apple doesn't act as toll-keeper for the internet. If you're ideologically aligned towards Open software, 1) don't hitch your wagon to Adobe, which doesn't support linux and wants to be the middleman getting rich off of the internet, & 2) you should make your work free as a web app rather than insisting on opening up the AppStore. The heavy hand of Apple has made the AppStore so simple that 80 year olds are excited about trying new software. What it does not need is buggy, me-too apps crowding the store.

Apple makes software and hardware, a unique place in this industry. They've bet their company on highly controlling the hardware and what has access to it, and tried to help make the web as open and interoperable as possible. With Webkit and the many other technologies that Apple gives away, I'd say do more work for free than Adobe does as an entire company. The battle of who's more open is irrelevant when Apple never claims to be open, but when Adobe is on the offensive, the proof should be in the open source pudding.

Update: John Gruber has weighed in on this same topic today, with far more insight & technical know-how than I can offer. Perhaps it is best summed up by his tweet, "If you buy Adobe's argument is that Flash is open because they've published a file format spec, then Microsoft Office is open too, right?" Also, Adobe has responded to Microsoft and Apple's claims that Flash Player is buggy and insecure by saying that is "old news." They don't mention that it contains the second-most attacked vulnerability on the web.

Assessing the Faith

To start off this endeavor, I'd like to share a post by a blogger new to me, John Shore. He writes this confrontational piece called "Ten Ways Christians Tend to Fail at Being Christian." While not a wholesale endorsement, there are some very pressing talking points here. One that's sure to stir the pot a bit:

"Christians need to more readily admit that the religious experience -- no matter how riveting and real it is to the person experiencing it -- remains a subjective phenomenon, and talk about it that way"

This could really rile up some feathers. When one starts using the word subjective, many Christians are up in arms. And not without good reason; today we hear a lot of "What's true for me may not be true for you," and other generic pleasantries. But if we believe that God is the quintessential Truth, creator of all reality and a verifiable person in history in Christ, it seems like a slap in the face to say that God could be subjective.

That's not necessarily the intention, however. Consider Søren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher & theological writer. He often wrote on the theme of subjectivity in faith, by which he meant the interaction that goes on in the individual. That does not mean that a person is making God up, or that God only exists in one's imagination. The workings of a person's heart do not change the external realities of the world. But Jesus was not concerned primarily with the external signs of religion-like ritually clean hands. He cared about the heart; the individual, & subjective, faith of individual people. Anyone who's been a Christian for even a short time knows that you cannot make that same decision for others. Invariably we experience the peace & purpose of faith and wish to share if with those we love when we see others looking for a similar fulfillment. When we are convinced that Jesus is in fact Lord, it's only right to want to reconcile others to him. There are plenty of ways to show Christ to others, but there's no way to highjack someone's heart.

Not the. An.: anonymousMonk

In my sleepless mind-churning, I've decided that I am going to commit to blogging on a regular basis. The topics will gravitate toward my two main passions, as evidenced in my usual moniker (anonymousMonk); theology & technology. Those seemingly disparate fields that take up the majority of my time, & in a way characterize me as a person. This explanation serves as a preview of what is to come.

What is an anonymous monk? Where do they come from? Are they dangerous? What started as no more than a riff off of Jazz musician Thelonious Monk with a wry attempt to turn something soulful into the mundane has taken on greater & greater significance. I've come to see myself as somewhat monk-like. My quiet nature could easily be mistaken for a vow of silence. I've come to cherish my introversion as the gift that it is; the ability to deeply meditate on questions (no matter how inconvenient the hour) is one I can finally appreciate as significant.

The anonymity of the web is usually viewed in the negative. It does allow for people to air their childish behavior & escape consequences. But there are many positives as well. While I have never believed that the majority determines the truth, I think "crowd-sourced Christianity" is part of the tradition of the church-a body made of every tribe. In anonymity I speak as one without authority, as many do. When they match God's words, they have weight, & thus everyone's anonymous voice must be weighed constantly. To ignore words that match God's truth is to ignore God himself. So we listen, no matter how foolish the lips, for the breath behind the words. I am not the anonymousMonk. I am an anonymous monk among many. A man in love with aliteration, thoughts, information, & controversy.

How does the organic, living truth in theology meet the alternating alienation and connection of technology? Stay tuned.