Theoblogical

About 2 and a half years ago, when I learned that I had only 3 months
more at my position as Web developer with United Methodist Communications,
I applied with another UMC agency for a “Social Media Director” position.
Despite my packed resume dating back to 1991  – focusing on everything
from which Social Media is derived today, back to its roots (like pre-
Web, online communities such as Ecunet, an ecumenical, 1980′s -founded
conferencing system accessed by dial up), Web work in e-commerce, content
management, online community evangelization (meaning attempting to run
“PR” for the idea that church organizations can and should always be
building an ecosystem of Web communities around EVERYTHING (“Social Media
predecessors” or early evolutionary incarnations of Social Media), and
constant immersion in the constant flow of new Web standards, tools, and
possibilities – despite all that,  I never even received a call or an indicator
that there was an interest in what my experience meant for them.

Despite this 20 years of experience, and despite that it was all in the
context of and BECAUSE of the church that I was constantly engaged in
looking at the present and possible future of the Web and its tools, Web
shops in denominational agencies seem to be of the mind that “Development
is development” and unrelated to theological issues or in need of
theological forethought or “theology of databases”. Data , for the
church, should and MUST BE deeply theological. It goes back to the
concept of “Social Graph” introduced by Facebook. For Facebook, the
“graph” seems to be giving a layman’s perspective of the relational
database. One set of data is linked together sets of data by keys. It’s
all ONE database, linked together by users, types of users, their
“interests” and “locations” and “Likes”. The latest iteration “Social
Search” (to which I have still not been granted access), is a further
opening of that data to users to selective filters by user.

I’ve been writing about this for three or four years, and I’ve had
exactly ONE person exhibit any kind of technical or faint theological
interest. Nobody in church communications, nobody in IT; all I hear is
just “crickets”.

Where does the “old” come in here? Well, its that problem with how
“Social Media” is taken to mean  “Young people are going to be the best at this”. That itself is WRONG. While its true that this is true of the overall population,  it is NOT true than any given young person will understand and converse with social media as well as any given “older person”.  And this is even more of a problem when it comes to theologically aware institutions/organizations,  since theological institutions are supposedly making  conscious efforts to be a communal effort;  open to the knowledge carried about by its experienced members,  as well as to the insights of the young.  Even more crucial is the insight of the development of the “hyperconnected” expectations of the human mind as a result of new communications technologies.  Those who have been paying attention,  and being simultaneously affected by those changes as well,  and seeing “changes” through lenses “fine tuned” to see the spiritual/social/psychological/cultural affects and effects will have invaluable insight into what tools show most promise in leveraging our ecclesial maturing.  In other words,  it is a grievous oversight and naivete to miss ANY of this.  Why is it that church organizations don’t think it is even an issue that its development visions for the Web and Social Media would need theological insight?

Reading a few Jeff Jarvis articles in Medium.com.   Heard him talk about this on This Week in Google yesterday.  Really good show yesterday.  They talked about Google Glasses, too.

The article about Googley Restaurants was fun.  The quote below was one that was an idea also put  forward by Rheingold in Net Smart.

Serve your niche instead of the mass. Do what you do best.

The Googley restaurant — The 21st Century Restaurant — Medium

(BTW, I just clicked on my Windows Live Writer bookmarklet for the first time in ages.  They don’t seem to have updated this lately.  I should go look.)

I’m sorry but the article you are looking for has been removed. You can read it at the author’s personal blog.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/should-we-give-up-god-for-lent/

OK,  points for re-linking over to Micah’s blog for that post.  But I have so many  points at which I am feeling embarassed for how RLC handled this.

1.  NEVER do that.  Let comments expound the conversation.  I can see how certain extremely volatile cases might warrant some “moderation”,  but I simply didnt see it here.  AT ALL.

2.  Taking it down is just relapsing back into old media reactions.  The cat is out of the bag becuase of Social Media.  Previous tweets from @REDLETTERXns ‘ own Twitter account point to the RLC link,  which now reads as shown above in the quote.   Just looks silly in today’s world.

3.  Since when does either the Emergent conversation OR Red Letter Christians conversation reject the notion of some pretty important theological or philosophical conversation?  Peter Rollins certainly doesn’t if I understand him at all.  Neither does Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne,  or any of the people who conceived of the Red Letter Christians designation/sensibility.  And,  as Micah Bales obviously freely shared,  neither does he.  So wha??????? Why all this?

Sorry,  but I had to rant.

Read this post from my friend Jeremy John last night,  and he raises up many of the dimensions that emerged from the post by @MicahBales responding to what he sees as a danger/distortion  that lies in “over-intellectualizing” or “internalizing”  the philosophical challenges so often articulately formed by @PeterRollins.  I’ve read a couple of Peter’s books,  and have had the opprtunity to hear him live on three occasions.  I’m impressed with his insights.   I identify with much of them in a deeply spirtual way.  He reminds me of the things being said back in the “Lay Renewal” , “Relational Theology” days of Keith Miller and Bruce Larson and Robert Raines in the 70′s.  These are the theologies on which I arrived into the church with renewed passion for ministry,  and decided to go to seminary.  I told Peter this after I heard him for the first time at WGF 2011.

Jeremy tells a story about himself here that lifts up the importance of what Rollins often covers in his many treatments of the experience of the sense of absence of God.  I can’t deny (nor do I want to )  that it matches the experiences I have had many times over the past 40 years of seeking to follow Christ.  And Jeremy also expresses a similar appreciation for the philosophical rigor and articulation expressed so artfully by Peter Rollins.

Jeremy also knows Micah Bales,  and fully understands Micah’s misgivings of which he wrote,  and of which I have heard him speak in past  conversations with him when I met them both via OccupyDC and OccupyChurch  last spring and summer.  This is a MUST READ along with Brian Merritt’s post this morning.  So proud to have these 3 men as friends! (Micah, Jeremy, and Brian), and to have had the opportunity to chat briefly with Peter on a few occasions.

http://glassdimly.com/blog/christ/waiting-god-dark-night-soul-peter-rollins-atheism-lent

I concur deeply.  In other words,  a hearty amen on just about every point.   I’m disappointed  in RLC,  as I have been over the past year in the “social justice” orgs and their strange,  what I can only identify as “reticence” to really be a support and encourager and enabler and participants with the Occupy movement.  To say “they (Occupy) helped start a conversation” is certainly true,  but it can’t stop there.  The church needs to be “full-throated” and energetically resource-ful  in ENABLING the movement and TEACHING their communities about what the Occupy movement says to us (SHOULD say to us)  theologically and spiritually.

http://indefinitedefiniteness.org/2013/02/19/why-i-support-micah-bales/

I also love this post by @glassdimlyfaith  (Jeremy John)