Today I want you to use both sides of your brain

So, I wanted to lift up a book to you this week called Flickering Pixels, by Shane Hipps. Two words: Awesome book.

Ok ok, two more words: thought-provoking...(would that make it one word?...nevermind)

I wanted to lift up some questions pertaining to the direction of Spirituality, Christianity, and Technology that have come up from reading this book. I would love to hear your response in the comments section or just link to your post. If you don't have the book, you can use one of the resources below:

• A group of bloggers from churchcrunch.com posted reviews of the book by chapter. Here's the first link to navigate your way around...fair warning, the chapters are not in any particular order...like numerical...yeah :)
• Jennifer Kay Smith posted some insightful blog posts a year ago, which are connected to the questions I'm about to ask. I suggest you read her posts on the brain, the telegraph, the changing of us through technology, and the transformation of community to individualism.
• Guy Williams added to the convo, adding some more interesting links you may like.
• Shane Hipps has his own blog, and his website. Take a look and if you would like, subscribe to his podcast.

So, here are my questions:

• Going forth into a new technological-christian frontier, we need to keep both eyes open to the past culture and the media shift of web 2.0 (here's a link to what i'm talking about, I realize I'm saying this a lot...), as there may be an erosion of memory, but an expansion of consciousness and overall good (20). What would be some benefits or concerns you would see as a pastor or church goer who would want to stay as a physical church body? What about a "virtual" church body? In what ways could we balance this?
• Video killed the radio star. The same could be said about moral relativism and traditional ways of evangelism due to the personalization and privatization of faith/christianity (on p.64-65, but in other words, there is no absolute Truth, but individualized non-congruent truths). What is Evangelism 2.0? --> How would you talk about your faith to another person about Christianity? Would the overarching goal be to convert the other person? Do you believe that the world is not trying to find an absolute and unifying Truth and if so, what are people trying to find?
• I feel that Hipps is making a concern on the pages leading up to p.71 about Christianity: Christianity with Web 2.0 can put out the information about the religion faster, but that does not mean they will understand it better. "Christians 2.0" may get a bombardment of religious information they will ever need, but have no understanding nor the wisdom to do something with it, calling it a perpetual puberty of Christianity (72). How do we train/create leaders to bring understanding to the faith in social networks, blogs, etc.? How do we help Christians sift through this knowledge to get the linkage between a virtual faith and a physical praxis (acting AND reflecting on their faith)? How do we help as religious leaders the wisdom of living their life according to their faith?
• Left Brain, Right Brain. The left side controls the deep understanding of the Bible while the right side controls the deep reflection of the Bible. With the dawn Web 2.0 and the mass usage of images and light-reading, the right brain is more emphasized and the left brain is more downplayed (143-147). Hipps thinks this is an issue. Should this be a concern? How can we change it?

I would love to hear from any of you. But most importantly, I would love to hear if I'm asking the wrong questions. What questions should I be asking when it comes to Christianity and Technology?

Jon

Opening up the conversation

I am just amazed by the powerhouse theologians tonight at the TAG conference. Prof. Phillip Clayton started off the night to show that theology means in an age of Google. But it should be brought to the point that the internet will revolutionize and evolutionize Christianity just like the printing press has. No longer will we be evangelistic. No longer will we be progressive. There will be no lines. Just connections.


Callid Keefe-Perry closed off the night rocking the house, inviting everyone to come and be open to the conversation. Even heretics/heretic-hunters like Ken Silva who has been bashing this conference left and right.

So I pose a question for all to join the conversation...

I literally just saw this commercial on TV, but understood it as traditional Christian theology. Traditional theology has failed you. But I ask you: how will you participate in building a theology that builds community rather than divide it? How will you join in the conversation rather than denounce it?

If you have time, try to watch the live stream of the conference or the twub feed here. we would all love to hear from you while we're in the conference.

Jon

Theology After Google

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
• Podcasting 101

Be there or be here listening to the streamed version on March 10-12!

Jon

Reflecting on Brian Mclaren and Small Business School

I received a comment from Small Business School in response to Brian McLaren's new book, A New Kind of Christianity. It made me think about the image of the church in terms of continuity, symmetry, and harmony. I've tried processing what this person was trying to describe as he writes about the relationship of perfection and business that incorporates religion.

After one week, I've tried to reflect upon it here. Thank you Small Business School for your comment and your article.

I want to say that I did like your article. It was certain that the boundaries that was set within McLaren's book does not pertain to the whole in terms of philosophy, theology...Christianity. It disrupts continuity in the sense that it feels like a step backward in the evolution of Christianity. It looks unsymmetrical in its relationship, and creates a form of chaos that does not reflect the harmony of Christianity.

An initial observation from a religious stance is that the three factors of religion that you describe is very Buddhist in its nature. Which is fine, but the argument that you put against McLaren seems to be just as restricting when you describe religion in three purposes. It is as if a Muslim argued against a Christian for not thinking past the Bible, but then uses the Koran for their argument. I don't think it promotes the best dialogue because I there needs to be an understanding that both come from different paradigms. Be as it may, I wanted to try to interact with the three factors that Small Business School had mentioned in their article.

• Continuity - I would like to say that the history of Christianity has always shown and promoted times of discontinuity. In the Bible, if Moses conformed with what he was given, would he have ever freed the Jews? Jesus' life is based upon defying those who were the religious leaders of his day, and if he were to have continued that life there would have been no such thing as Christianity. In a more tangible sense, Martin Luther's life was criticized for going against the Christian norms, but in many ways, he along with many others including John Wesley led to the creation of protestantism. a few centuries later, a man by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. will also defy millions of Christians to fight racism. On a bird's eye view, Christianity has evolved and been continuous towards perfecting life. It is also certain to say that life is not perfect. At all. Therefore, there will be a need for those within Christianity to show various insights of the world - some will look radical and will cause an uproar like McLaren's book. There can also be an argument that perfection in a continuous sense is subject to the paradigm/viewpoint it was formed within; as we move towards a deeper sense of perfection, there is more difficulty to bring everyone together. I don't expect everyone to be on-board with McLaren, and if it is not to succeed then I will let God make that call. Rather, using his book as a springboard into the issues for today's Christians will give those dividing answers of what people really believe what perfection is. I believe what McLaren is trying to do is simply to show us where the problems/"forks in the road" where Christians do not agree with each other.
• Symmetry - A symmetrical relationship in terms of religion seems to be the most confusing, as I was not sure if it was meant in terms of vertical relationship between God and person, person-to-person, or in other relationships with church and God, church and people, etc. Truth is, we live in a society where relationships are becoming...something not traditional? I'm confused too. I think that there's a point to Small Business School where symmetrical relationships are important. To add onto that, I want to say this: how do Christians define a symmetrical relationship to God, the church, and to the world? I personally think that many Christians do not understand their relationship with the other OR the relationship has been unsymmetrical and always biased towards one side.
• Harmony. My first sermon was based upon a story of Jesus where he describes himself not to come down to this earth to bring peace, but to divide nations (here's the best way I can describe this). I concluded that this may also deal with the creation of paradigms. You can create harmony, but it is always contained within the paradigm itself. Paradigms shift when this harmony is conflicted, either with the problems associated with the paradigmatic viewpoints, or with the solutions associated with the problems. I believe that Brian McLaren's book was not meant to bring peace to Christians...but to just think of what issues the world has to offer. A person may his/her answer in the Bible; others may find it in community of Christians, or in the relationship with nature, science, culture, society, or in prayer. It reaffirms the paradigm they are within, or it sparks a new paradigm, creating that continuity that religions provide, but the beginnings of a harmonious relationship that needs to be more clearly defined both in reflective understanding and practice of faith.
  

I think a more systemic issue pertaining to the contributions of the article for business that relates to religion is that religion is a business. I think you can find some pastors who would admit that administratively, the church is a business that provides an exchange of services. My argument is that the church should have never adopted this understanding. There is a need for the church to provide services in order to stay afloat. It makes the church safe and comfortable. Keep in mind that I have no background in business. But I would hope just like in business, for the church to take risks in order to achieve greater continuity, symmetry, and harmony.

I hope this spurs all Christians and non-Christians to comment on this post. Thank you very much.