One of the reasons why I started this blog was for a class requirement. As the class has progressed, so has my understanding of the influence and interaction between our evolving culture and our everlasting Christian theology.
Something must change.
Here's how.
The class I'm in is part of a conference that I hope that you can attend. It is called Theology After Google. There's no need to link to it, because there's a huge link to the right of this blog. Click on it, and you will see a lot of people both in the emergent Christianity realm and in the emerging technology/networking realm.
It will cover ideas and thoughts about:
Having the church catch up in a social-networking, blogging, and tweeting world
Emergent theology for mainliners
Blogging Basics
Emergence through biology and theology
One word spiritual reflection
Energizing your church with social media
Film making from a theological standpoint
Web 3.0: the human evolution of technology and theology
Hmm… There’s no way in which I can write all my thoughts about Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity.In what has began as a class project, I would like to speak on behalf of someone who supports what Brian McLaren is proposing in his book.Type McLaren’s name into Google and you will find that this pastor and his book has been described as a “heretic” from the right side and repetitive from the left. I hope that through this post (and the next…) you would feel compelled to read this book. This post will try to expose your mind to the first 5 questions, with insight from my classmates and other bloggers.
Question 1:What is the storyline of the Bible?What we have come to understand is that the way we see the Bible has been interpreted over and over, largely in part towards Greco-Roman influence and superiority.If we strip away what we have understood as the six-lined narrative, we can see God and the purpose of Jesus in a new light. We are a product of 2000 years of being shaped into Christianity, emphasizing all the “good” and ignoring/killing/excommunicating the “bad”, “indifferent”, and “marginalized”. I suggest you watch McLaren’s answer. Chad Holtz gives an insightful perspective of what McLaren is trying to do in the first couple of chapters and in this first question here.Scroll down halfway.
Question 2:How should the Bible be understood?McLaren suggests that scripture could be, and has been used to defend and advocate any position like constitutional law (78-79).Rather, think of the Bible as an “inspired library” that has kept track these conversations so that we can continue them (83).My classmate, James Kang, takes a different direction in his blog, asking, “when will BIBLE 2.0 come out?”Chad Holtz explains his take as well.
Question 3:Is God violent?Depending on what chapter, verse, or book in the Bible can give you a range of depictions of God.You could potentially choose who you would like to pray for, as McLaren mentions Ricky Bobby as a sad example (first 2-3 mins).McLaren poses that the negative images of God need to be understood as the best depictions that our Christian ancestors could describe with words (103) and that the full image description of God has been in constant transformation to something that is culminated into what we know and to believe is Jesus.
Question 4:Who is Jesus and why is he important?McLaren is so focused on the issue that Christianity has heavy Greco-Roman influences because Jesus’ life was based upon moving away from the Greco-Roman life (126).Using the book of John, McLaren describes Jesus as the new Adam bringing a new Genesis to the world (135).
Question 5:What is the Gospel?McLaren uses Romans as the moving point: to understand the gospel that Paul preached, we have to understand the gospel that Jesus preached, which in its most raw form, it is to know that the Kingdom is at hand (138).This Kingdom, as McLaren brings to life through Romans shows that it is the presence of everyone and everything being encompassed underneath God.The Kingdom is now.
I will leave you with this until next time. Mike Morrell wrote a blog in defense of what McLaren is trying to do, which McLaren appreciates as well as I.Here is a few things of what he said:
…From my vantage point, Brian is now doing what many wish Obama would do: Grow a pair and say “You know, my message isn’t for everybody. I’ve been very diplomatic for years, but that hasn’t gotten me very far with those who continue to loathe me and my message. So now I’m going to speak plainly to those who like these kinds of conversations, which can still be all kinds of people. Except for those who, by general disposition, are inclined to (yes) ask “Is it acceptable to my religious/ideological community or belief system?” before they ask “Is it possibly true, valuable, and worth exploring?”…
Like Mike Morrell, McLaren is not above criticism.In fact I believe he wants constructive criticism.That’s the whole point.Lets actually talk about the things that we put our entire faith into.
Before doing any homework assignment, I do what I (and what I believe anyone younger than I) would normally do: look for anything that I can find about it online.We were asked to read Tom Beaudoin’s book, Virtual Faith, where Beaudoin explores Christian theology from the standpoint of GenXers.A very brief review of the book can be found here, as well as an article of Beaudoin can be found here.Currently, Beaudoin is teaching as a practical theology professor at Santa ClaraUniversity.
I write to you not about to write a review, as I have not read a majority of the book.I do want to post midway into reading to engage my thoughts and my peers.In this case, I carry more of a stance with James’ opinions, but receptive to the ideas that Beaudoin brings to the table with his book and with his life.
Although this book has nothing to do with my generation, I believe there are many things to note:
Generation-defined culture is only one genre of culture.It’s safe to say that the world is multi-cultural by age, ethnicity, gender, geography, social/economic status, etc.As future religious leaders, we should be aware of the various cultures associated with GenX to engage in a more effective ministry.Furthermore, there is a need to understand the relationship between cultures.In this case, there may be a need to understand where GenXers came to be from the Baby Boomers, as Bedouin goes into detail of the origins of GenX.There should also be an equal need to understand where the next generation is being pushed by those who come from GenX.
Relative to any form of reading, it is important to make the world relative to your frame of view – in this case, your cultural identity.I realize that I am not part of the GenXers, but the struggle to identify the differences between the theology from the Baby Boomers and the GenXers is something to reflect upon my own generation and the generation prior.
Technology extends our senses.In a recent blog video posted by Callid Keefe-Perry for our class expresses the writings of Marshall McLuhan, explaining that “the medium is the message.”GenXers as described by Beaudoin do not see the world the same way as the generation before them.Pop culture has been their viewing window into the world.They have been witnesses of a generation of good leaders who were assassinated, and they kept their sadness in.I bring all of this in because the culmination of technology of that time period gave them this view.MTV was a major influence upon the GenX culture.I Googled/wiki’d what other factors defined GenX: home computing, internet, video games, and birth-control pills, to name a few. To believe that all of these things had no effect on GenXer views of Christianity is to hide underneath a veil of unconsciousness. I think there may be some usefulness to describe how technology extends our theology, which is the core belief of Beaudoin’s book.
I am very aware that culture does affect the frame reference of Christianity, whether it is intentional or not.Agreed, Christianity has this built-in understanding that we can change the world through the transformation of the Holy Spirit.These two articles (one written by my professor, Phillip Clayton, and the other written by Pastor Chad Holtz) dialogue on the emphasis of Christianity on culture or visa-versa. It is my understanding that Christianity from a missionary point of view was most effective by adapting and emerging from the native culture. Many countries have been assimilated into Christianity with this method.If that is the case however, the world will always change because of Christianity, and Christianity will always need to acclimate to whatever culture it is immersed in to be effective.Yes, another chicken and the egg routine similar to James’ blog comments, but also promotes the need of new age theologians who can incorporate new technology and new culture.
I hope that Christianity is affected by technology, because Christianity needs to be more influential in the technology used today.I do not mean this in any evangelistic notion or anything, but rather, to ask how modern technology has affected Christianity so that we as Christians can develop theologies and theological practices for emerging generations/cultures, whether physical or virtual.Here are some weird notions you can all play around with:
What are the latest technologies that have been made or exploded in popularity within the last 10 years? Do they have any relevance to the changes/trends on Christianity or religion in general?
Some things to consider:cell phones, laptop/touchpad computers, ipod and other MP3 players, Kindle readers, Toyota Prius (Gen. 2 and 3), multi-core computer processors, digital cameras, Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
More random things to consider:YouTube, Farmville, Xbox 360, Wii, doppelganger week, etc.(also, the emergence of nanotechnology in the various fields of science.History goes back as far as 1960’s but has been more mainstream within the last 10 years.)
There have been people who have emerged in amazing popularity within the last 10 years who have played a role in our culture and Christianity as well.They may have also affected Christianity in more ways than none: Barack Obama, Taylor Swift, Star Wars Kid, Beyonce Knowles, Osama Bin Ladin, Miley Cyrus, Dave Chappelle, Manny Pacquiao, Sarah Palin.
Technology now seems to be in a place where new technology does not extend the senses farther, but extends the senses faster.What does that mean to Christianity?
Can Christianity be just as effective in virtual communities like Facebook, twitter, Myspace, blog communities, and other virtual environments like instant messaging, chat rooms, etc.?This is the big question to where my TAG class revolves around, but I mean it is worth noting if a person could take all the various aspects of Christianity and create a theology that is relative to the current generation, maintains a level of practicality, and has the capacity to hold onto past theological doctrines/commitments.
The story of my call looks like the story of Moses. Moses started out with a very lucky life, growing up Egyptian but knowing he was Hebrew. Following who he was, and standing up for what he believed was right, he had to run away from his Egyptian life. While climbing a mountain, he was startled by a talking burning bush, which told him he was to free the Hebrews. Moses laughed and made up as many excuses as he could: no one would believe me because I can’t talk good. No one will listen to me because I don’t have special powers. God handed him a stick and said, “just wiggle this stick a little, it will look like a snake and get everyone scared.” Moses finally takes God's word and frees the Israelites.
For me, my own story starts out following a life that was leading up towards another career. I had been studying Computer Engineering for four years, graduated with honors, went to UCLA and started failing. Wasn’t exactly sure why, but I started to realize that my identity did not fully lay in the engineering field. After toiling with this sense of failure for two years, I started hearing a call that made me and my family laugh. God gave me the call to serve his people, but I at first laughed, and told God, “my mouth is very dirty, I can’t say two sentences without saying f-this or a-that.” I told God, “I don’t like speaking in public” but God told me that’s why I put you in public speaking classes. I told God that I don’t look at the Bible in similar eyes, I don’t study it like other “good Christians”, and God told me, “I never wanted you to look at the Bible the same way as anyone else.” Every illogical reason I had to not become a minister, God had either previously prepared me in one form or another, or used logic to calm them. And so I’m now walking the path that God has put forth in front of me, but if he makes me carry stone tablets, I’m going to be so mad.
