Theoblogical

Theological Community, The Church, The World, The Blogosphere
Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Occupy Theology’

@ShaneClaiborne: “Tears were met with teargas.”

September 15, 2014 By: Theoblogical Category: Occupy Theology, OWS, Theoblogical

Shane Claiborne: “Tears were met with teargas.” http://ow.ly/BvwA3

“Dr. King said: a ‘riot is the language of the unheard.’ What happens when folks do not feel like their voices are being heard?”

Another#Ferguson happens.  That first Claiborne line is a powerful way to put it.

I posted this in my Occupy Theology section in my blog because this is an issue of voices being heard,  whether it be the 99% , the victims of racism,  the victims of militarism,  or the victims of economic elites war on the poor.  This is the issue for the church of the 21st century: that it stand with the victims.  In some cases as a fellow victim (as with the 99%),  but also as a community who stand with the voiceless and seek to make those voices heard.

The Occupy Movement Explained (Ideas Explained): Nicholas Smaligo

September 12, 2014 By: Theoblogical Category: Occupy Theology, OWS, Theoblogical

http://www.amazon.com/dp/081269855X/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_doce

“For some, this was an excuse to return to their cynicism; for others, it was an invitation to lose their illusions and begin to see the world from the viewpoint of political activists” – from the Amazon description

“Conversations can no longer be controlled. They can only be joined”

September 09, 2014 By: Theoblogical Category: Occupy Theology, Too Big To Know

I tweeted the above Randall Rothenberg (president and CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the trade association for interactive marketing in the U.S)   quote from “The Facebook Effect” yesterday after I heard it in the audio book. I knew that one was a keeper.

It succinctly captures the widespread problem I STILL see churches and religious organizations falling into:  the idea that the conversation out there needs to be “managed” (aka “controlled”).  A mainline denomination for whom I worked,  where I have had the opportunity over 24 years to observe,  17 of those in a couple of agencies,  are particularly oraganizationally reticent to joint the conversation,  much less to start or encourage them.  I remember a consulting firm making a presentation to my organization and observing that user forums on websites have been “left to their own devices”,  usually resulting in desertion and abandonment.  There is also the fear of theological debate,  which is what happened when a “My Space” type experiment was built for them by a third party.  This is not just the one denomination by any means.  I don’t see a lot of “online communities” springing up in other church online efforts.

I often point back to Ecunet,  an online community prior to the Web,  which overlapped the Web’s explosion onto the scene by 2-3 years,  as a stellar case of what can happen when church folks decide to try the “form/meeting” format.  Ecunet was contemporary of The Well,  which also didnt make it much past the explosion of the Web.  Once the Web hit,  The Well was bought and sold more than once ( I stopped following it).  I know that with Ecunet,  it was the Web which opened up a vista that seemingly swallowed up everyone on Ecunet and people stopped contributing.  Much of this was due to the resistance of a sizeable portion of Ecunet to embracing the Web and beginning to carve out a presence and a space there.  By the time they decided to do so,  the community had dwindled to a fraction of its size in its heyday.

The unwillingness to carve out a space and open its own “firewalls” to the larger ecumenical community out there seems to have been its downfall. And so we are back to the original quote which is the title of this post.  Ecunet needed to have moved to set up shop on the Web,  in anticipation of having its protocols and methods become obsolete in favor of the open standards of the Web.  The Web would have fit in nicely with the theological stance of Ecunet regarding accessibility and affordance.

But far after Ecunet dwindled,  its former stalwarts,  scattered to the far and wide winds of denominational technology efforts,   were set to work on building the various denominational silos where everyone did their own thing,  and denominations themselves had various agencies seeking to outdo one another in carving out their own space and creating their own content. But few ever dared to try and test the waters of  online community,  and in those few occasions where they did,  they gave up on it fast when flame wars erupted.

Is this how churches would effectively handle the risks of theological comunity in the face to face spaces,  where people by nature disagree?  Is the road to seeking our calling and developing missions that work on the internals and reach out to the external (outreach)?  It seems to me that the best churches keep at it,  because “we’re all we’ve got”.  We need to recognize the importance of working out the communication miscues in te online space.  It’s especially hard in new mediums.  There are mysterious social phenomena at work,  as all new mediums present themselves. We need a “Social Psycology of Online Spaces” component to our pastoral counseling.  More on this soon.

Pamela Lightsey and Phillip Agnew at #Ferguson

August 22, 2014 By: Theoblogical Category: Occupy Theology, OWS, Theoblogical

Arrested Reporter Smacks Down Joe Scarborough’s Criticism

August 14, 2014 By: Theoblogical Category: Occupy Theology, OWS

This is how Lowery responded on CNN’s “New Day”:

“I would invite Joe Scarborough to come down to Ferguson and get out of 30 Rock where he’s sipping his Starbucks smugly…I have little patience for talking heads. This is too important. This is a community in the United States of America where things are on fire. This community is on edge. There is so much happening here and instead of putting reporters on the ground we have people like Joe Scarborough running their mouth who have no idea what they’re talking about.”

via Arrested Reporter Smacks Down Joe Scarborough’s Criticism.