Change, Community, Communion, and Curation

It often seems unnecessarily radical to change one's ways of doing things.  When systematic ways are changed, either by brute force or previous failure, many many react negatively.  This is happening in Congress as the GOP-controlled House fights against the already-lawful-and-upheld-by-the-Supreme-Court-as-constitutional Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It's something different, very different, being treated with hostility because of its difference and perceived (and somewhat realistic) hardships.  

Difference and change are difficult for so many to comprehend.

There are viable reasons for this. Many arguments made against Obamacare are valid and backed up by numbers and inevitable cost to typical Americans. In many ways Obama will take more money from each American in order to make health insurance for all Americans a reality.  It is very different from how America has traditionally treated her citizens since her beginning.  Valid concerns are heard, but change keeps on trucking.

The thing about change, historically, is that it is easily delayed but essentially unavoidable.  It only can be re-steered to go in the "proper" direction. Change is inevitable; direction of that change is somewhat controllable.

[Quick change of scene.] 

As a United Methodist, I have a common joke I make about our church: we are always 20 years behind.  It's only a joke but it strikes a strong chord on the reality guitar.  Take contemporary worship music for example.  Simply put, the United Methodist Church, for better or for worse, ignored the contemporary worship scene for years upon years.  "Contemporary" worship music pushed through the evangelical and hippie-ish movements in the late 60s and early 70s and began to refine itself in the mid-late 80s and early 90s.  Evangelical churches (read: non-United Methodist churches) were often the first to jump on board.  There might be many reasons for this, of which the fact that many of those churches do not submit to any larger governing body ought to be at the top, but evangelical churches by and large beat Methodists to this punch. United Methodists have moaned and groaned about how badly the music is written and how non-theological the lyricism is ever since, but the general public has seen some churches grow and some die.  United Methodist churches have been on the dying side of things far too often.

We are late to the game and they seem to be "winning." How to combat this then? Well, of course: We have to raise our numbers so that our church doesn't die! We must start a contemporary worship service! How then do we do that?  Well let's look at some resources.  Where are these resources?  Oh great, there are tons of resources available!  There is tons of music available! Who is providing this music? Oh! The Evangelicals. Great!  Let's hire a worship leader!  Great! Most of the good worship leaders are at the evangelical churches, so we'll get the pretty-good ones.  They should be able to lead the United Methodist Church into the next generation of worship! Great! This is going to be so great! 

And, what do we end up with?  We end up with a church whose tradition of well-written, theological singing is nearly lost because in the switch to the new medium/genre, we picked up someone else's tradition and theology simply because it was already there for us. We blindly took the cookie left for us without considering the consequences. Change came and we got on board and took the road-too-often-traveled without considering where it was taking us.

20 years behind, then, may mean that we need to curate a bit more than we'd expect.  What's the trade-off of simply using someone else's work?  What's the trade-off for our congregations and disciple-building? Have we fully examined this change, its constant insistence upon itself, and where our destination lies?

The same has happened in online communities.  Online communities, if you can believe it, are old now.  They began, essentially, with the advent of email and have continued to be refined and refined over time. What one sees in Facebook, and all Facebook is meant to be, is simply and refinement (albeit a very well done refinement with its share of quality innovations) of the original idea of communicating and communing online. Online communities may seem like a new thing to people (and maybe especially to United Methodists) but they're simply not.  Hey, United Methodists, you're late again.

And so we pick up where we left off. Many non-UMC churches are offering well-done online churches in which a church attendee can log on, converse with a online pastor, watch the worship service, and even pray online with the guidance of the pastor.  The difference is, of course, one doesn't feel the pastor's hand on your back as you pray; she's generally miles away from you.  This sort of idea isn't new, it's simply new to United Methodists.  A popular church in Florida is doing just that (a high school friend of mine is heading it up...you can check it out at www.engagemenow.net).  

The new conversation (happening right now in Nashville, TN) is whether or not United Methodists ought to offer the sacrament of Holy Communion over the internet.  Practically speaking, it's exactly as it sounds.  The viewer (and I use that term intentionally) provides their own bread and grape juice (or wine), while the pastor blesses the elements through your computer or TV screen.  It's along the same lines as that pastor praying over you but without being able to physically feel their presence...except it's with the sacrament of communion.

Perhaps this is an controversial concept to speak about because many of the other churches don't hold communion (Eucharist) in the same regard as United Methodists (or, if we're speaking honestly, maybe many of them actually hold it in HIGHER regard simply due to their insistence on the frequency of participation in Eucharist) . In other words, maybe Methodists are trying to graft United Methodism onto a medium and evangelism technique that someone else, someone different than us, already created. The difference is that the penalty for moving in that direction on that road of change is a loss of traditional practice that has been important to Methodism. In my mind, it's not much different than us trying to sing that one song and trying to change the lyrics because the song is so...like...Calvinist. We couldn't write a comparable one!  We just have to graft Wesleyan theology onto whatever trends come because we were late to the game and not innovative enough to pull ourselves out of the hole.

Goodbye, Wesleyan sense of community.  Goodbye, Wesleyan understanding of Jesus's presence in the Eucharist and the necessity of physicality for incarnation to be experienced.  Goodbye, sung Wesleyan theology with an emphasis on the unending and unchanging love and grace of God. 

I'll maintain until I die that change is inevitable and good in this world.  But, change comes with responsibility.  Change comes with the need for curation.  Change also comes with the need for innovation and outside-of-the-box mentalities. And, while all those seem so poorly connected, it is indeed necessary that they all work together cohesively so that the good parts of what we have are not lost. The danger of Calvinistic theology creeping into Wesleyan churches--even if only through the music--is, and has been, upon us.  The danger of cultural definitions of "community" and "experience" is creeping in on us and our livelihood is at stake.

Online communities are coming.  The challenge and calling is there for churches to attend to.  People want religion and they want to be online.  Ignoring it seems silly and simply jumping on the bandwagon blindly seems sillier. Change is necessary and inevitable.  Curation and innovation are necessary and often forgotten.

Let us not be so persuaded by a new movement that we forget who we are.  Maybe, just maybe, we can feed a need within our society in a new and better way.

-B

Rebranding My Facebook

On Monday I begin the next 'chapter in my life' (though I'm not fond of that phrase) as I take a position at Florida Southern College as the Associate Chaplain. Florida Southern is my undergraduate alma mater and I couldn't be happier to be beginning work at such an institution. I'm even happier still that I'll finally be with my wife again after a long hard year living separately.

Attending seminary at Duke was a mind opening experience. I've written about it previously on this site, you can browse below to find it. What most seminarians will tell you but you might not realize is that the power behind the learning doesn't really happen in the classroom. The learning happens in the conversations, the study sessions, and the field education placements, in which you and those around you discuss communally and practically those things which are so important to the faith.

I've become infamous over the last three years for living out those conversations very publicly online. I've said things I still, to this day, agree with. I've also said things that, after going back and reading them, I have no idea how I logically arrived at the conclusion I did. Whatever the case and my feelings toward my statements now, they officially live in the permanence that is the Internet.

Many who see the Internet as a dangerous place will tell you that this new pervasive permanence is a bad thing. While the degree of pervasiveness is likely higher than at any other point in history, the idea of publication being permanent is not new at all. In fact, since the printing press, ideas could be easily distributed among the masses. These ideas came from people whose, say, Board of Ordained Ministries were watching and reading them. Conveniently, when the time was right, the Board would be able to pull up their latest published book and say, "In your last book, you said ________. We think that's foolish." Though the American criminal system allows one to keep words they say from being used against them in court, our extrajudicial bodies have no such ties. Since publication was a possibility for humans, the idea that their words could come back to haunt them has been in strong force.

What the Internet HAS done is this: make it so that every single person on the planet can publish themselves. There is no overseeing publishing company saying things like, "Should you really say that?" Or even, "Should you say that in that way?" Now, because of the gift of Facebook, we are all treated to an abundance of knowledge and record of what everyone in our lives had for dinner last night and what their position is on gun control. And now every word and picture can come back to haunt them later in life.

Back to me. I've chosen to use the road of Facebook to engage in what I consider to be worthwhile conversations regarding real things that affect us day in and day out. As someone who has scoured Internet forums for years, I see Facebook as a far more accountable tool for conversing. Facebook has my daily activities, places of employment, pictures, name, and other useful information attached to it. If I say something that is unfair, unkind, or egregious (and I do), my name is attached to it. Anyone who took considerable time to read online forums and compared them to my Facebook wall would quickly realize that the conversations are far less vindictive and quite a bit tamer on my wall. Facebook, because of its nature, allows that.

Now, I've found the conversations on my Facebook wall to be eye opening. They're a lot like the lunch conversations in seminary. Some of the highlights include my recent tirades on why guns are fundamentally bad for us, Beyonce's Super Bowl performance, and my constant avoidance of difficult topics like abortion. Many have characterized these threads as hateful and rude, but I don't see them that way. I don't approach anger in disagreement as a negative thing; I approach it with excitement. The chance to learn, to see differently, and ponder anew is right around the corner. What fun!

The Internet, more specifically the Facebook News Feed feature, brings a new dynamic to Internet publication and response though: it forces it into the faces of your thousands of friends whether they wanted to read it or not. The anger in some of these threads is perceived by many as a a negative way for a Christian to interact with the world. Many many many have brought this to my attention, even calling into question my character because of the threads. Their point is this: I publish a status, I get a response, I respond, the thread goes down a dark way, and it feeds my ego that people comment on the status. While this isn't how I've perceived it at all, the point is well taken. Their argument often follows that no real conversing is done here. Instead, we have fighting for the sake of fighting.

Those who tell me such things have their own opponents in this regard too. I can't describe how many people have privately contacted me or commented in the thread itself letting me know that they're glad that I say the things I do. They're glad that I have the courage to be as outspoken on issues that normal Christians won't touch. Their comments often fill me with confidence and joy; being in the heat of arguments like those that occur on my wall can be depressing.

Both sides have a point and up until this point I've shown little regard for trying to walk the balance beam that exists between these two sides. Like a free agent, I've kind of done whatever I want, whatever I feel is right, with little regard for the political or social implications of my actions.

While this ignorant world that I've been living in is incredibly fun and freeing, I'm also keenly aware that this is not the real world. As a Christian and pastor I know that my words have meaning. My words speak. My words matter. And not only that, my words are accompanied by the manner in which I speak. This is where those Internet haters have a point. The way that I say things matters more, often, than the things that I actually say. This is perhaps where I have been loosest in walking that balance beam.

And so, with this, because of the pervasive permanence of the Internet, my new role in representing institutions, the dynamic differences in Facebook publishing, and the constant bombardment of threats on my character, I'd like to announce a rebranding of my Facebook. From now on, I plan to keep most controversial things that I feel like need to be said to places like this blog where I can be more thorough in my approaches, I can think through more, and where the blatant information and conversations are not thrust into the faces of every Facebook friend I have. Knowing me, some of it will creep in and out of my statuses from now and then, but I fully intend on those updates being a lot more trivial than they've been in the past. The old material will, for now, remain on my wall. However, I'm not going to go back to engage in conversations like I did before. Facebook will, hopefully, not play that role in my life anymore.

These conversations are worth having, but the context of them will continually need to be rethought. If I feel like something is missing here, I'll reevaluate, but I think it'll work.

Keep up with me. I greatly enjoy it.

-B

Thoughts on the New Facebook or, "STOP CHANGING, FACEBOOK!"

Yesterday, Reed Hastings (CEO of Netflix) included this statement in his apology letter to Netflix's customers:

For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn't make the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at something – like AOL dialup or Borders bookstores – do not become great at new things people want (streaming for us).

(Keep this thought process in the back of your mind for now. We'll get back to it)

Today, Google opened up Google+ up to everybody (something I argue they should have done since the beginning), including anyone without an invite.

Coincidently (or perhaps not so) Facebook made some significant changes to their layout, functionality, and design over the past week. We all know the one constant in our lives: when Facebook makes a change, the whole world complains.

Without a doubt, the changes Facebook made are significant. The way stories show up in a news feed is almost completely different and they've now instituted an extra "creeper bar" (not mine or Facebook's terminology) to show the user what's going on with their friends, in real time.

Most of the comments I've heard are not based around the design factors, the content, the creepiness, or anything else.  No, the comments I've heard have almost all been monolithic: "STOP CHANGING, FACEBOOK!"

I suppose that somewhere inside of all of us is an inherent desire to remain comfortable. I suppose we all want to stick with what we have.  It is the same reason that sooooo many people are still running Windows XP. If something costs money and is likely to make things more confusing, people are likely to forego it if at all possible.

What occurred to me, though, was that no one complains about Windows coming out with a new OS because it changes(I have it, more comments later on it). No one complains about Apple coming out with a new OS because it changes.  Why? Probably because it costs money to upgrade. **I'll forego, at this time, my argument that everyone should upgrade (except for Windows Vista) to a new Operating System whenever possible.**

But with Facebook, you don't get a choice.  They upgrade your account and Facebook experience for you, without your permission.  And no, they didn't ask you first.

And Facebook is free. They control what you can and can't do (no matter how much we convince ourselves that we are in control of our own information) and we are their mercy.

So why the problem? Why the complaints?

Because Facebook has to change. Because there was this little company that started a social network with a dumb bird as a logo that is growing at unbelievable speeds. And because one of the biggest companies in the world that seemingly controls all of the information on the internet and how we find it decided to create a pretty good competitor to the big FBook.

And, people don't have a lot of loyalty to Facebook.  They don't have any money invested in it. And switching networks will become more feasible as more people are on both.

There's a threat at hand. Facebook is facing an enemy, one who is trying to steal their user base. This hurts page views.  This hurts ad clicks.  This hurts profits.  This hurts their business model.

They can't remain stagnate. No one can.

The best thing a Facebook user can do is to accept the fact that one of the biggest things they're addicted to in the world is really, at its heart, a competitive business and nothing more. Zuckerberg might try to sell you on their "connect everyone better" mission, but they won't survive without money. Like any capitalistic group, Facebook is a business and needs to stay that way to move any further. When people invade their turf, they're going to fight back with everything they can because...they simply have to.

The better question ought to be, "How can you change, make yourself more useful, and still maintain a simplistic atmosphere moving forward..one that doesn't confuse people?"

This is what Google has nailed. When they came into the search scene, they didn't just stay with search. They made themselves better.  They evolved.  They made themselves more useful. But, when you're trying to find something on Google.com, there's no question as to where to start typing.

None.

-B

Casey Anthony and Our Broken Society

Some things become immediately clear when big news occurs. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, people celebrated in the streets. When Michael was acquitted, people burned his albums. When OJ was acquitted, well, I don't remember what happened...I was in second grade.

But when the verdict was read that Casey Anthony was not guilty of anything more than lying, Facebook and Twitter took to doing what they do best: providing user-biased-commentary on events that the writer generally knows very little about.

Society, as a matter of history, generally disregards systems. They riot, they fight, they write music, and some societies even go on suicide missions. They do what they, as one person or one small group, can to make a change in society. At that point, society may or may not change ("progress" is really a relative term) how it functions.  Moreso, it may or may not make a change to the system.

I'll probably take flack for this, but as I made clear when I wrote about Rev. DeLong, I am a fan of the system (whatever the current form of it looks like).  Why? Because we, as a society, have to trust the system to decide things for us. We have to trust something in order to keep from killing each other left and right. Ask any leader who has ever decided something that wasn't popular. Now, I also have a conflict of interest, because I am also a fan of progress.  But I think that progress comes through actions (with any luck, non-violent) of those within the system.  They make arguments about why something should or shouldn't be the way it is, and then votes are taken so that a democracy can do its best job to decide the best and move on.

More or less, I say follow the rules. If you want to make a change because you think something is unjust or wrong, do so, but do it in the way that is set up. It's the societies that do not allow citizens to voice opinions that I would rather rail against. They oppress people, and that is wrong.

But America, for the most part, does not oppress its people.  It has systems set up to decide things. We must follow those systems (and that still stands for someone who wants to change the system).

Here's how our legal system works:  One person is on trial for doing something that breaks the law. They have the right to have a lawyer. Then, the state has a "prosecutor" who tries to prove their guilt. Then the person on trial's lawyer defends against the guilt. 12 people listen to all the evidence, think about it, listen to all the arguments, and then go back into a room and talk about it until they come up with a verdict. More or less, the lawyer with a better show wins. We all would hope that that winner would be the person is "right." But, what we forget is that "right" is often a matter of bias, is often vague, and is rarely agreed on by multiple people.

That's the system. If you don't like it, I heard North Korea is nice and welcoming.

So, we could say that the justice system is broken. And it is.

But, it's only broken because our society is broken.  We build our lives on lying to each other. We get ahead by stabbing friends in the back. I'm not saying that it is good(obviously I think quite the opposite), but it is reality. So my question is: why should we expect our legal system to be any different?

One of the things that the Bible makes pretty clear (I think) is that justice belongs to God. Jesus calls on us to not judge others. But see, the Bible isn't a prerequisite to being an American. So we have to judge others.  Because if someone takes someone else's life, do they deserve to keep theirs?

And we do that in the best way possible. If you look at our American legal system over others, we're doing ok.

And we have one more kink in the cable in America. Not only is our society built on lies, cheating, and general deceit, but we have the media to spin everything for us. And it's convenient, because we find out about mothers who are accused of killing their 2-year-old daughters, stuffing them in a trunk, dumping their bodies, and then not telling anyone for 31 days.

And everything has a cost, including convenience. The cost is that we hear "facts" third or fourth-hand.  We hear them in a way that excites page views and more channel subscribers.  We hear them in a way that catches your attention. There is no doubt that Nancy Grace has used this story to increase her ratings.  I appreciate that she is so disgusted about this death and has made it her goal to spread love and accountability. But know this: she makes money from what she does.  And she makes more money if her shows gets high ratings. So what she's doing isn't bad (in fact, spreading awareness about the death of children is great) but her view and premise is biased.

Which is why I get upset when I look at the tweeting world and see so many people drawing judgment on Casey.  Because no one I personally know spent every day in that court room. And those who watched online or watched via news programs did not get a clean view of what was going on. And even if you had sat in that courtroom every day, you wouldn't know exactly what happened because you're getting the information from people who get paid to show their information in a way that makes them "win."

So, as long as rhetoric draws people to vote for you, we will be a broken society. As long as people murder and lie, they will be able to get away with it. As long as lawyers paychecks are on based on their performance, we will never truly understand justice.

I kind of have a feeling that Casey did it. But what do I know? I only ever watched the news.

We just do the best we can and respect our system so that we can, as a society, maintain some semblance of fairness and justice.

We have nothing more than that.

Like in the Rev. DeLong case, I am convinced that no one wins. Caylee is dead. Casey will never be able to go in public again. The entire Anthony family has been accused of horrible things. No one, including our society, wins.

-B

Well, maybe Baez wins.

Selling Your Information, or, Google+

So the newest Google product made its way unceremoniously to the public's eye yesterday. We all had a feeling that it was coming.

This is the way Google does things isn't it? If they have something they are fairly confident in (Google Music, Android, etc) they talk about it at their developers conferences, much like Apple does. However, Google also does a lot of experimenting with products. These they often release under the radar, hoping that the blogosphere will take care of it.

And, they do.

But it also always seems to be these products that seem the creepiest.

I must be clear before pressing on though: I do an awful lot of bad-mouthing of Google and their products. But GMail, without a doubt, is still the best email system in the world...Google is easily the best search engine in the world...Google Docs is still the best way to collaborate on documents in the world (but, really, that isn't saying much)...and the Google contacts, calendar, and ecosystem is currently the best free way to keep your life in sync. Google puts out a ton of great products. I don't happen to like Android as much as iOS, but Android is a REALLY strong mobile operating system and each time I pick up one of my parents' phones, I am pleasantly surprised. So, I hate on Google a bit too much, but there is no denying that most of what they do is quality work; it just doesn't have the style, elegance, or seamless user experience that Apple has come to be known for...yet.

And Google's newest product is...Google+.

Google+ is, very simply put, an attempt at creating a better version of Facebook and Twitter. It takes ideas and concepts from both and uses them in nice, new ways.

Given Google's previous work in the web app space, they have a fair chance. Given Google's previous work in the social media space, they have no chance at all.

But all that aside, I can't review Google+ yet. I CAN say that it looks very promising. But, it is missing many more things (and I mean this almost literally: in the thousands) to be able to compete with the monstrosity that is Facebook. But, for what it is and where it is, it is very, very good.

Here's my fear: how does Google make its money?

Google's revenue is based almost completely in advertising (something like 96% of its revenue). This is no secret to the world. This is why when your mom emails you about buying your dad a tie, you see ads about ties in the bottom of your gmail. Google is using what should be private, sensitive information to advertise to you within not just search results, but your email client and many other things.

Facebook has received a lot of criticism in the past about how much information they have of yours and how they use it to make money. And don't try to sugar-coat it: Facebook is doing the exact same thing that Google is doing. But Facebook has much more than sensitive information within in an email: they have your name, address, phone, email, likes/dislikes, political status, pictures, friend lists, location, etc.

But, up until this point, Facebook hasn't had my email (though they are actively trying to change that), calendar, contacts, etc. They have had sensitive information, but they haven't had all of it.

And Google saw that omission.

And they wanted in.

So they designed a sleek new social network, so they could get that information, easily. What's the easiest way to get someone's information? Don't steal it, you can go to jail for that. No, ask them for it. Don't worry, if you give them a cool video chat feature, they'll want it so badly that they'll give it to you.

Call me a fanboy or just old-fashioned, but I'd rather the company I rely on not get their revenue from advertising (with influence from my information). I'd rather they get their revenue from me buying their shiny gadgets. Because in that way, they don't have an interest in finding out more about me, they only have an interest in making better, more attractive products. It still works like...the free-market capitalistic society was designed to work.

It is true that Google isn't "selling your information." No, not in the way that we have always thought about it. They're not selling our phone numbers to telemarketers. And that information isn't really being "shared" with others other than Google. But really, it's not too different. That information may truly be "private" by the world's previous standards, but I have a feeling that our definition of privacy is being redefined on a daily basis. And I also have a hunch that we haven't even seen the beginning of the problems our addiction to social media networks will cause.

Eric Schmidt was asked recently, "Should we be scared that Google knows too much about us?" To which he responded, "Would you rather us know about you or the government know about you?"

Neither, Eric. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the one who wasn't making billions of dollars from that knowledge.

Oh, the world we live in.

And yes, I'm still going to give Google+ a try. I'm addicted, just like the rest of us.

-B

The Older Annual Conference

I've been watching the Florida Annual Conference off and on for the past few days. They stream it live (with post-vote commentary!) on their website for the whole world to see. It's probably a sick obsession with church polity or the fact that my wife is there and seeing a little glimpse of her here and there is a lot of fun, but either way...I've been watching.  I watch as much of the voting sessions as I can stand, listen to a lot of the dialogue during discussion, and watch whatever of the worship service I can.

There's been a small Facebook and Twitter campaign rolling around trying to get younger clergy and laity elected to serve as delegates to the General Conference next year.

And yet, when the election breaks down, there doesn't seem to be as wide of a collection from all age groups, it tends to weigh heavily on the older populations.

Now, I was raised to respect my elders.  I was raised to think of them as wise.  I learned first hand how wise many of them can be.  I learned first hand how correct many of them could be. Life does that to you, I guess. Life allows you to learn lessons that you'd only have learned from experience.

But I can also remember the times that I was listening to a pastor give a Children's Moment on a Sunday morning and one of the children said something so brilliant, I had to write it down.  I remember the times leading a small group at camp and one of the 6th graders made a theological observation that blew my mind. I also remember when I saw a 5th grader put his arm around an acquaintance (of the opposite race), who had been made fun of; he provided comfort and love that the acquaintance hadn't yet experienced.

I mean, right? Those experiences will change your life. I can already think of several instances where I've seen the wiser, older people not act or speak in those ways because 1) it was not appropriate or 2) things had never been done or spoken of in that way before.

And so as I reflect on an Annual Conference that elects more older people than younger people to represent them to the General Church, I worry. Not because young people are better (the older were once younger, remember). And not because older people are better.

But because God speaks to and through people of all ages.  God does things through the young AND the old. The Bible speaks to this time and time again.

It seems normal that in Florida, there would be a larger population of older members. It seems to make sense, then, that the voting would follow that breakdown: there are going to be more older delegates elected than young.

But, what if we worked to actively elect a broad range of ages? What if we said, "I think this 20-year-old has just as much to say as this 60-year-old"? What if we invested in the future and new leaders by providing them with the opportunity to feel as if they are a part of something real? What would it look like for an older candidate to look toward the younger candidates and campaign for them? What would it look like for new ideas to be treated with the same insight and respect as older ideas? What if the representation didn't represent the age of people, but rather it would represent the way God treats and speaks through every individual?

I think it would look like the Church.

-B

Might I Ask...What's the Point?

This stuuuuuuuuuupid picture circulated on Facebook today. Its unbelievably bad photoshopping is unbelievably evident immediately.

So...if you're going to fake this out....might I ask....what's the point?

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Fake/Photoshop'd Waste of Time:

The Originals:

A quick image search of Google answered my question.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

-B

Moses' Social Network

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIxToZmJwdI&] -B

Does The Church Have Products?

A few weeks back, I wrote this on my Facebook wall:

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he took the entire museum of old Apple computers and gave it to Stanford in an effort to stop looking back and start looking forward. No longer did Apple worry about what had happened but it began to focus on who it was and where it was going to go. Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is. What would it look like if every church tore down its walls and started over? It would send a message for sure.

The question posed saw more responses than I imagined. (I won't include a permalink to the conversation because Facebook's privacy policies are iffy at best and I haven't asked permission to post any one person's comments.)

The part that I choose to focus on here is: "Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is."

In order to understand this fully, you'll need to understand a few things:

1) I'm slightly obsessed with Apple Inc.'s product line.

2) I'm significantly impressed with the work that Steve Jobs has done at Apple. (and much of that respect leads to number one being a reality)

3) I get criticized quite a bit for being so Apple centric. (It's ok, courage of my own convictions)

4) I think quite a bit about the dying mainline churches and what might save them.

You'll also need to understand the history of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) and the highs and lows that the company has been through. If you aren't that up to date, don't worry, you can get the basics here. The important part is that Steve came back and revamped much of the company to turn it into what it is today.

My question posed above resulted in several responses both on Facebook and in person(reminder: name omitted):

"Steve Jobs isn't Jesus"

"Is the church a product?"

"The Church does not have "products;" the Church is not something that can be marketed."

"I'm not sure how [John] Wesley would have felt about the church having products..."

"I'm game."

"The church absolutely is marketable if that means sharing via medium other than word of mouth although you can certainly say that inevitably has flaws also."

"Bryant, you love Apple too much."

"Rather than us forming the Church into what we think it should be, we should be asking the questions about why we haven't allowed the Church to form us."

There were more, but now you have an assortment.

In trying to understand this more fully, I did some thinking and ended up at my bookshelf. I noticed that there were a lot of books on it that had to do with the Church and in one way or another the world (and therefore, the Church's relationship to it). I took a picture of all of them.

There are lots more. Written by all kinds of people: bloggers, Pastors, missionaries, seminary professors, and Apostles.

As far as I can see it, the question of "Does The Church Have Products?" stems off of this struggle with where the Church fits into our everyday lives. In the midst of the dying Church (some stats peg the United Methodist Church to have lost 6 million in membership over the past 50 years), we question whether the Church is still "relevant" to our lives.  The body of Christ-as a whole-has responded by creating magazines to investigate this, commercials to combat this, and books (see above) to discuss this.

Naturally, churches have moved to worldly ways of getting the word out about their relevancy in order to attract new people. As a result, we have seen the rise of a few things: Contemporary worship music (no longer boring services), stylish preachers (think gel'd hair and tight jeans), new looking buildings (the warehouse look is in), and advertisements on billboards (we all know who the churches with the money are).

This is scary to many. Especially (as I am learning) to seminary students.

Because here we are learning about the history of the Church, the mistakes and progression its made, and somehow this new fangled worldly marketing is scary. Rob Bell even mentioned in his book Velvet Elvis that he was appalled when he saw a sign advertising his new church.

"The thought of the word church and the word marketing in the same sentence makes me sick."

Rob Bell argued that people had to "want" to find the church. they had no advertisements, no flyers, no promotions, no signs.

The first week they had 1000 people in attendance. (People on Amazon.com's reviews of the book argue that Bell came from another giant church as an associate and so his name was probably already known to the area and his follower base was already there.  I can't vouch for those facts because I simply don't know, but it would explain quite a bit)

The bigger issue to me is not the marketing. I agree with Bell that if we break down our evangelism into "marketing", we have missed the boat. But that doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have products.

The obvious answer to whether or not the Church has products is "Yes, it does."  For better or worse, it does. Products, as I see it, are the things that come out of the Church.  The things that the Church produces.  Perhaps we should stop and look at some of the products of the Church (as as to convince you more fully): pastors, businessmen, bad theology, good theology, morally responsible citizens, not-so-morally responsible citizens, worship music, "non-worship" music, art, advertising, love for the marginalized, hate for the marginalized, etc.

Things come out of the Church. Because the Church is a body of people. And bodies of people exist for a reason (whether or not they are aware of it). From our own nature, we exist to produce. And so, we have products.

Here's where Steve hit it on the head in his return to Apple.  Apple had too many products.  One of the famous stories centered around Apple's printer production.  He asked, "our printers suck, why are we making them?" They stopped making them. They later gave up on the Newton project because Steve said "handwriting is the slowest form of input". When something wasn't working, they gave it up.  The started again and worked on it until was good. Then, when they debuted it again, they told people about it. And, because it was worth having, people flocked to it. In a mixture of simplifying and revamping, Apple turned around from being nearly bankrupt to being the powerhouse and influence that it is today. That's how the Newton turned into the iPhone.

So the Church has products. But the products aren't what we tell people about. Or at least maybe we shouldn't. Jesus is what we tell people about. Or what we should tell people about.

Here's my proposition: Jesus isn't the Church's product.  To say that he is would be to commit heresy. But, our perception and portrayal of Jesus IS a product of the Church. And sometimes, that is messed up. So perhaps we need to examine how we are portraying both Jesus and ourselves to the world. If we can re imagine a better way to be the Church and the body of Christ, we could score big. Maybe then evangelism would be what it needs to be.  Maybe then disciples would be created instead of just church attendees. Maybe then people would fall in love with Jesus through the Church instead of falling in love with the music.

Of course the Church has products. If it didn't, it wouldn't contribute to the world. That would be a shame.

Evangelism is the key to the Church's growth.  Proper evangelism comes from discipleship. All these things take care of each other. We ought to be more aware of how progression in culture effects us and what we can glean from it in order to better ourselves. The Church is a God-ordained body that exists to spread his name and glory so that more may grow in their pursuit of Christ-like life and perfection. But it is made up of imperfect humans that try their best. Sometimes, we just have to be realistic and trust that God will work through our imperfect products.

-B

P.S. - I've had the opportunity to help start two churches now from scratch. We talk about marketing in a live or die fashion. These churches cannot exist without people knowing about them. Word of mouth is great (and the best form of spreading the news) but sometimes isn't enough. We aren't looking to be huge, we aren't looking to be a mega-church, we are looking to survive. Many who have argued against me (though admittedly not all) have not started a church from scratch. I would highly recommend that those who have not had that opportunity, need to have it. It is an important experience full of highs and lows. For those who think they know the "right path", it is a nice reality check.