RhodesNetwork

The more I think about it, the more I think sex divides us more than it brings us together.  How’s that for counter-intuitive?!

And yet it seems to be all we can talk about.  Or more accurately, it’s all we can think about as long as we don’t talk about it except that we can accuse other people of thinking about it or doing it wrong.  Just don’t broadcast it.  During the Super Bowl.  Ever.  Unless it’s a commercial and they paid for it.

Why don’t we talk about sex?  Because we’re very busy hiding it between the thin pages of our bibles.  That way it’s safely hidden from view.  It’s safely hidden in the most scandalous, raucous, kinky, sex-laden book I’ve ever read.

But don’t read those parts.  Those parts make us uncomfortable.

And it’s getting into the uncomfortable parts of faith that Brian McLaren does in his new book, A New Kind of Christianity.  McLaren dives directly and fearlessly into the sex question, spending a great deal of time discussing what is clearly a public hatred of non-heterosexual attraction and behavior.  And he cleverly steers us away from closed-minded rhetoric into thoughtful, scripturally-supported territory.

The reality is, homosexuality has become more of a buzz-word these days, used most often to generate fear and hate.  Residents of California have heard all too often that gay marriage will ruin marriage for everyone, although I’ve yet to hear how exactly that would work.  Conservative Christians will quote from any of 6 passages to condemn homosexuality – although Justin Cannon has written a compelling argument to all of these.  Go Justin.

McLaren correctly recognizes that non-heterosexuality is not the only part of the sex question in relation to faith.  Sadly, we don’t seem to be doing any better even when we avoid that sticky homosexuality thing.  McLaren reminds us of these chilling realities:

• Social anonymity makes secret-sex easy.
• Easy drive-by birth control (as long as you can afford it, and many can) makes us forget that sex can lead to pregnancy.
• The technology of the condom and of medicine make us forget that sex can lead to STIs.
• The average marriage age is going up while the average age to hit puberty is going down.  That’s a growing gap of time for extra-marrital sex.
• Porn is easy to find online.
• Commercial media is all about sex and sex appeal.  Yes, even during the Super Bowl.
• Poverty and unemployment leave people with very little to do.  And if you don’t have much to do, doesn’t sex sound good?  Even though you can’t afford birth control.  Nor do you have the $$ to support children who will then grow up in poverty & repeat the cycle.

But don’t talk about sex.  That’s for private conversations.  That should be talked about at home.  That way it’s safe.  And in the words of Dr. Phil, how’s that going for ya?

I don’t think it’s the gay Christian who’s damned (or the gay pagan, for that matter).

If there’s any place at all to talk about sex, shouldn’t it be in our churches? Doesn’t it sound better to talk about sex in the context of God and spirituality?  Doesn’t it sound better to teach appropriate love and compassion rather than hatred and divisiveness?

Because when I read my Bible, that’s what I find.  Yes, there’s scandal.  But that’s not all.

I just got home after attending the Clayton v. Dennett debate over at CGU.  I’m still processing, and will likely want to watch the debate again.  If you missed it or need to watch it again, the place to do so is here:

Here are a few thoughts I’d wish to share, and then I’d invite dialogue.  In other words, please comment!  And for those who read this blog on Facebook, please follow the link at the bottom to view the original post and comment there.  Thanks.

Before beginning, I recognize that this post is long.  It’s very long.  So let me summarize here my basic observations:

1. Persons of faith need to do a better job (following the example of science) of openly criticizing extremists who say and do things counter to the majority of a faith tradition.
2. Theology must take place in public.
3. The most interesting people in the world – regardless of their ideas about faith – are those who are open and available to ideas and conversation from outside their norm.
4. All humans must risk being wrong if they want the possibility of being right.

Now.  The debate in more detail.

The first half had to do with pretty detailed philosophy.  It’s like they were testing the waters.  It was almost an intellectual foreplay – to be especially blunt about it.  Clayton and Dennett seemed to be getting a feel for each other’s styles and approaches.  And maybe – thinking of this like a poker game – looking for tells, for vulnerabilities.

And then we got into the dialogue on religion.  I was only a little surprised to hear how much agreement there was between Clayton and Dennett.  I got the sense that Dennett has the biggest problem with those theists who say that their ideas are the only Truths and that anything else is wrong (or anathema or worthy of hellfire & damnation).  That is not, however, the position that Clayton presented.  I would argue in fact that a great number of Christians – counting myself in that number – would say that we are open to the multitude of ways that the Ultimate may be expressed.

Returning to the conversation about extremists in faith communities, the following exchange took place (my transcription isn’t perfect, so bear with me):

Dennett: In every religious tradition there is unpresentable radicalism, fanaticism and it’s everybody’s problem.  And moreover, it should be the particular problem of the people in the same religion…

The irony is, every person who goes out and does good works for whatever their religion is, is providing protective coloration for the bad people in the same faith.  The Mafia would be so clever if they would go out and build a lot of hospitals and things like that because then they would not be so obviously bad guys.

Every time a benign religious group does good works, they cannot help but give succor and cover to the malignant versions of the same religion.

Moderator: How is that different from science?  Isn’t there a lot of bad that gets done in the name of science?

Dennett:  Fortunately the scientific community is forthright in its criticism and its rooting out of that.  I do not see the liberal Christians going out and naming names and calling out the radical fundamentalist christians and saying “you are a disgrace to christianity” which is what the scientists say to the bad scientists.

Clayton argued that many Christians do just that, and it got me thinking.  I think progressive Christians need to do more of that!  I think progressive Christians have more work to do in becoming more vocal, more outspoken.  I think Christians must be bold, not only in calling out those whose voices are out of touch with Christian teachings, but also bold in talking openly and plainly about our theology.

Christians must no longer be relegated to the category of people who believe what they’re told.  We must challenge and explore, we must theorize and evaluate, and we must be relentlessly open to new ideas and new ways to express those ideas.  Science continually reports exponential advancement.  So where are the news articles of new advancements in religion?  This is not to say that progress is left undone; but where is that progress to be seen?

If the progression of religion is to be left in the academic institution, then it is to be left behind.  The forum for progress is in the open – just as in science – to be reviewed and picked over, and to be boldly and constructively criticized.  Let theology be released and renewed in the open.

Clayton and Dennett found common ground discussing what kind of persons they find interesting:

Clayton:  The biggest danger it seems to me is to say that all humans know we know with certainty, and the areas which are speculative or difficult to figure out – the hardest philosophical issues – leave us with no idea how to proceed.  I guess I would argue it belongs somehow to the nature of what it is to be a human person to grapple with those questions that stretch our reason into areas where we go as far as we possibly can go.

Dennett:  I agree completely with that.

It seems that the persons they found most interesting were those who weren’t dogmatic, who don’t claim artificial certainty, and who don’t claim to know the unknowable.  Instead, interesting people are those who are open to the new and the now, whether or not they ascribe to any particular faith.

As the dialogue came to a close, Clayton and Dennett began to discuss their differing views of “ultimate reality.”  Clayton paraphrased both their views saying that Dennett sees the universe as the only ultimate and cannot see what could possibly be beyond that; anything beyond is meaningless.  Clayton says that the universe is a product of – or is contained within – an ultimate reality which is broader and deeper.

Then Dennett asked what I thought was the most important question – and one that I argue we should all ask ourselves.  He asked, “If you changed your mind about that – about what’s ultimate – what difference would it make?  What would the world look like to you then?”

Here is the key to the openness that I think is paramount to the continuing dialogue among theists and non-theists, and also among differing faith traditions.  What if we had to face being wrong?  What if we woke up one morning and found out that everything that we held to be “True” with that capital-T was false?  Can we even imagine that possibility?

And I submit that we must imagine that possibility.  It is not until we face the possibility that we are wrong that we can have the faith that we are right – whether our convictions are theistic or non-theistic.  We must be able to admit that we could be wrong in order to be in fruitful dialogue with one another and to collectively come to greater understanding.  Anything less is inadequate and – I would argue – counter-productive.

And so, open to the possibility that I could be wrong, I invite comments and thoughts, criticisms and opportunities for growth.  Let the conversation continue.

When I was in my early 20s, I went to a church in Northridge that had – for the first time I’d ever seen – a projector showing song lyrics during the worship service.  I had been involved in tech for quite a while and had been involved in my local church for even longer.  Never had it occurred to me that they could go together.  It was an epiphany moment.

An un-named number of years later, churches everywhere are dealing with how to integrate technology into worship.  Projectors and computers are making their way into worship spaces.  Cameras record images and sometimes even offer image magnification on those same projectors.  Announcements scroll before the worship, and maybe there’s even a quick video clip before the sermon.  And yet the question is – is this enough?  Even if the worship gathering is a well-crafted blend of flashy tech and spiritual worship, is it enough?

I say nay-nay.

In a conversation with George Strawn – CIO of the National Science Foundation and dedicated trustee here at CST – we talked about practical uses for technology in a church setting.  And what we talked about went far beyond projection in worship.  Here are a few more opportunities for faith communities to take advantage of technology:

1. Website.  Ok, maybe this sounds overly-simple.  Or does it?  How often do you research online?  It’s disturbing how many churches do not have a website.  And how hard is it really?  Your domain name is around $10-15 per year and hosting is somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 a year.  The challenge comes in web design.  My suggestion is that churches don’t get that one member of the congregation who thinks that maybe they can do it ’cause they built a page for their cousin’s friend’s sister’s father-in-law’s business.  If there’s not a professional web designer in the congregation – and face it, not a lot of churches have those – consider a CMS (that’s a Content Management System).  This means that non-technical folks can update your web page without breaking it!  Know going in that it isn’t easy to set up.  Be willing to have someone skilled do it for you – even if you have to pay for it.  It’s worth it!!
2. Blog.  Every leader in every faith community should blog.  It’s cheap (and by cheap, I mean free), it’s easy, and it’s a way for people who are looking for a church (or other faith family) to connect with the leadership and community.  And don’t forget to link to it from your website!
3. Podcast.  Ok, podcasts are technically a little more advanced.  With that said, there are ways for the technically-challenged to get this done too.  The keys are that you’ll need a way to record your service, to digitize it, and to make it available to the online community.  And, it’s important in this to remember copyright!

I get that these are only 3 things.  Can 3 things really make a difference?  I’m not sure they will in-and-of themselves.  What they can do is to help a church shift its paradigm.  Ultimately, the use of technology for a faith community is not to replace traditional ways of reaching the community, but to add to the conversation – to add to what is already happening.

Think about it this way.  When McDonald’s started selling coffee, did they stop making their Big Mac?  Nope.  They did a new thing.  They did it in addition to what they were already doing.  And they did it well – it was good coffee.

This dovetails nicely into the book I’ve been reading.  Jeff Jarvis offers in What Would Google Do? five things that any organization can learn from Google (yes, he says any organization… so couldn’t that mean the church??):

1. Create.  I think the 3 tips above give a good start for this one, and the resulting paradigm shift – if it’s allowed to happen – will bring about more creativity.  Embrace it!
2. Listen.  Most people will tell you what they think of your sermon, even if it’s falling asleep in the middle of it.  The same is true online.  The blog sites out there offer the opportunity for people to comment.  Read these and pay attention! Take them to heart and be willing to respond. 
3. Link.  Just like I suggested linking your blog to your website, link other important sites:  your denomination’s website, your neighboring churches, your community or city website, the local food-bank or shelter, and especially those organizations that have a relationship with your church.  When you provide a link to another site, ask them to link to you!
4. Join.  This is where Social Networking comes in.  If you don’t already know about Facebook and Twitter, find out.  Now.  Don’t wait.  Sign up and do everything you can to connect with others.  And see my previous blog on this.
5. Innovate.  This is where you’re open to the paradigm change.  When we try new things, we often become open to even more new things.  We become creative.  Nurture this!

Theology is not something to be relegated to the academic institutions of yesterday.  Theology is practical – and more – is is alive.  If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking – and look in new places using new tools!  I promise.  It’s there.

Ok.  So I get that it took me way too long to blog after my last Theology After Google teaser.  You have my apology.  Mostly.  While you’re getting irritated with me, know that what I’m about to blog are the class notes from last week’s class.  Ok.  Get mad.  Ready, go.

Now that we’re done with that, let’s get to the class stuff.  Although it was the second session for the class, it was my first.  So to find out when I walked in that we were going to have three guest lecturers – two via Skype and one via a pre-recorded YouTube video – I geeked out a little.  Ok, a lot.  Let’s get on with the notes.  I’ll translate some of them into English rather than my note-taking “Bob-ish,” though often I will leave them as mostly an outline rather than prose.

Our first guest speaker was Mike Morrell who opened with a couple of book recommendations.  Along those lines, check out Jesus Freak by Sara Miles and Thy Kingdom Connected by Dwight Friesen (reviewed here).  He also suggested keeping an eye on TheOOZE Viral Blogger Network for other book reviews or to review books yourself!

He then got practical.  Among many things, we talked about ways that students and ministers can use their networks to connect with people.  Using Facebook, take advantage of the “friendfinder” tool to find people you already know.  Also “friend” people who have similar interests by checking out various pages that you’ve “fan-ed.”  Then, point people to your own blogs using both Facebook and Twitter.  How do you find groups or pages on Facebook?  Just use that handy search field in the upper left of the Facebook window!  Pretty quick & easy…

Our next guest speaker was Steve Knight.  No, not the guy in the California Senate.  I’m talking about the guy who edited and published Kamikaze Magazine, who travelled through Germany, Poland, Singapore, and New Zealand with Steiger International, and who even worked for Billy Graham.  Steve also does work for Emergent Village and Serving In Mission, and has an upcoming job with a TV network that wouldn’t exist without the Internet!

Steve spoke with us about The Theology of Twitter (though he admitted that he would be more broad than just Twitter – the alliteration is nice!).  His presentation can be found here.  And here are my notes on what he said as he went through the slides, occasionally with references to specific slides:

• 3 challenges for the church in engaging social media
• What is Social Media (slide 2)
• Social media is storytelling – Sean Percival
• It’s about interacting with the conversation that are out there about your organization (church company, etc.)
• The Internet is a tool, a medium, but not just that
• The Internet is a community
• People are spending more and more time online, partly because all media is becoming social

3 Theological Challenges

• #1 – Be “reverse incarnational”
• Reverse of John 1, we are – in a sense -leaving our bodies and becoming words on websites, in blogs, in tweets, etc.
• There is some tension between physical community and cyber-community; it’s a tension the church must address
• Don’t count “conversions,” count “conversations”
• If we’re always trying to convert people, we’re short-changing conversations
• We must focus on asking good questions & focusing on relationship; conversion will naturally occur
• Why do people visit the pastor’s bio page more often than any single page?
• People want to develop a connection
• Like the advent of the Printing Press, the web is a revolutionary media
• The Internet is the town square – it’s where the conversation is happening and it’s where we need to be

• #2 – Maintaining the physical in the sacramental
• One argument is that an avatar receiving virtual sacraments indeed is a means of grace
• The counter-argument is that this kind of ritual is not an “outward and visible sign”
• Nor is unconsecrated bread & wine in front of a computer screen
• It tries to take liturgy and make it more magical
• It begs the question: must sacramental be physical?

• #3 – Promoting counter-cultural spiritual practices
• TIME Magazine did an article on people tweeting in church with member tweets shown on screens in worship
• Lots of churches & clergy tweeting:  “The church that tweets together stays together”
• On Twitter, follow @twitturgies & @tworship
• There are benefits of Twitter Prayer (slide 24)

The real challenge here is not to connect, but to disconnect.  There is a need for the church to create some counter-cultural spiritual practices.  We’re plugged in to the web & mobile devices, and we need to unplug intentionally for periods of time.  We need to take a digital Sabbath!

Check out 5 ideas for ethical social networking (slide 26) and 3 challenges for the church (slide 27).

Finally, we watched a YouTube video from Callid Keefe-Perry (TheImageOfFish).  Rather than water it down with my own blather, here’s the clip.  It’s a touch over 10 min.

That’s it for that class.  We next meet on Feb. 9th and I’ll plan on continuing with the class notes.  I’ll also be posting some things here as assignments for the class.  Next up with be related to What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis.

Until then…