theo|digital

“Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing… What Orwell feared was those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one…

In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”

~ Neil Postman, writing in his forward to Amusing Ourselves to Death, an old favorite that I finally just bought to put in the permanent shelves (go Amazon impulse buy). This guy wrote in 1985, and still has a lot of power. Love it. So good. Love it. Yep.

—————-
Now playing: Sigur Rós – Ágætis Byrjun
via FoxyTunes

Scot McKnight asked me recently if I’d look through a four part series of books InterVarsity staffer Don Everts wrote recently. I reviewed each, and Scot today posted the first of my takes on his blog Jesus Creed.

ps – have you noticed that Starbucks is closing all 7,100 stores tonight? And I’m already reading the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life report… hopefully some thoughts when I get done.

2008 hit fast, and I got so caught up in politics blogging, that I never said more about Ignite 2007. While there, I taught a breakout workshop entitled “What is the Emerging Church?” If you missed it, you can download audio directly , or visit www.igniteconference.info to listen there.

The seminar was my first hack at short description of the post-evangelical theological and mission conversation I’ve been trying to follow for almost eight years – (before anyone was using the word “emerging/emergent church” – a term that’s only five years old!). My audience was members of GCM churches who have heard the term “emerging church,” and maybe have read an associated book, but find themselves wanting to know more or wonder what it might mean. (ps – yep, the photo isn’t me… didn’t get a photo of me talking. It’s my friend Jon Dillow, who was teaching simultaneously down the hall at the conference center).

Meanwhile, a blogger I was previously unfamiliar with, C. Michael Patton, has a series of posts on the same topic (what is the emerging church?) that are getting attention – mostly because of a chart he drew that makes it look like is calling writers like Tony Jones a heretic. Reading him carefully though, I think he’s distinguishing between heterodox and heretic. In general, this chart is really interesting to spark discussion. And he has follow-up posts p2 (orthodoxy), p3 (definition), p4 (fundamentalism, evangelical), and p5 (emerging streams). Scot McKnight also noticed it.

My comments? For one, adjustments: I think Brian McClaren should be slid more outward, Erwin slid more center, and Tony Jones brought in a tad as well. And second, I still tend to view separation of “emerging” and “emergent” as somewhat artificial – in practice they’re still used interchangeably. At best, they’re confusing.

Maybe more later.

When the semester started, I didn’t bring this up right away. But here they are, my spring semester assigned textbooks:

Just some random quick news. For instance, have you seen that Starbucks is dropping T-Mobile as it’s wi-fi provider? The old $6 hourly pricing was obviously aimed at business expense accounts – I never used it. The new deal is with Wayport (ATT), and will offer two free hours of wi-fi if you use a Starbucks Card to pay. Smart business for them, free wi-fi for me.

And here’s the NY Times:

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

Zero votes? And if it only happened once, it would be simple mistake. But it didn’t. Read more.

I returned to Chicago (DCA to ORD – UA625) on a unexpectedly delayed flight last night. Why? Because a woman refused to get off the plane. Seriously. We didn’t understand why the boarding process hadn’t begun until the third cop showed up (on a Segway). They would all hurry through the closed door to jet-way, apparently down there trying to coax her off the plane. Who knew that was a thing?

One idea that comes up in missional church planting is the idea of “bounded set” vs. “centered set” church philosophy. The idea is often credited to social systems theory (not talking about math here), although if you google for it, you’ll get more hits on church blogs than anything else. It’s buzzy right now, I guess.

First, what’s the difference? Bounded set communities seem to describe most churches. Membership in a group is defined by an assent to a shared set of beliefs and behaviors. The mission of members is to ask people to belong by conforming. By contrast centered set thinking defines a group by its center. In this case, placing Jesus at the center, and allowing for the fact that all humans are at various distances from that center. The role of the group becomes to draw people closer to the center, not to define who is in or out.

The problem is, I still can’t decide whether it is Biblical or not.

Alan Hirsch’s wife Deb, was presenting this model at the Ecclesia gathering in DC, and asked “which of these in more Biblical?” loudly with the implied answer of “centered-set.” It was too simplistic for me.

The centered set is very attractive to me, and fits with my consistent idea that discipleship and evangelism are really very much the same thing – taking people closer to Jesus no matter where they are. And the Graham Tomlin (The Provocative Church) idea that a leader is to “keep the center hot not guard the edges” has rung true for me for years.

Yet don’t the sacraments – baptism and the Lord’s Supper – have a mandated? role of helping define who is in and out? Committed or not? Don’t they provide a boundary marker for who is in the family? (clearly Hirsch wouldn’t think so – but he’s anti-sacramental on the grounds they de-sacralize all of life. I disagree here).

And as much as Hirsch likes to cite early church example, wasn’t the catechical process for training and admitting new believers a long period of time? Three months? As long as a year sometimes? Weren’t they not allowed to enter the church proper until the process was complete? Talk about “in and out.”

So I’m torn.

I’m sitting at the edge of Washington, DC, listening to Alan Hirsch, Australian missiologist and church planter. He’s got a great accent, and has some sweet quotes.

Like these:

“Jesus says ‘die.’ You put that in your seeker-sensitive pipe and smoke it.”
~ Alan Hirsch on the recovery of discipleship as the church’s core task.

“You can do with 12 disciples what you cannot do with 12,000 consumers.”

“Two things I hold against Luther. One – his anti-semitism. But two – he discovers the priesthood of believers, but then he quickly covers it back up again. He retreats from it in order to maintain the status quo.”
~ Alan Hirsch on removing the clergy-laity split.

There’s Middle Class Jesus, Bearded Lady Jesus, Sunday School Jesus, Jesus is My Boyfriend, Buddy Jesus. And then Spooky Jesus. You know, he only seems human. If you scratched him, he wouldn’t bleed blood, he’d bleed light. Spooky. If you see him walking down the street, I suggest you take a quick photo and then run away like mad (sell the photo on eBay).”
~Alan Hirsch on ways we’ve remade Jesus.

I’m at a gathering with Ecclesia. More later.

Maybe many have already seen this, but I just saw it this past week. I watched the original speech live, though.

If you want, read more about the Yes We Can song (or see it bigger).

On Sunday, the Boston Globe ran a feature article on the idea of new monasticism – people who are practicing Christianity within the context of a community house with shared possessions, meals, hospitality, spiritual direction. The movement has seen some remarkable growth in just the last five years, and they have some good points about why they are not simply a re-hashed Jesus-hippie-movement.

I’m very interested, because in part, my home in Champaign, the Dawg Haus, has tried to live some of these values. I’ve favored a much more relaxed approach, which means a great deal less orchestrated discipline except weekly meals and chores. We emphasize hospitality, leadership, worship, shared intimacy, personal humility and spiritual growth. But these are sort of left up to the individual guy. The level of participation varies depending on the current spiritual motivation or maturity of the guy. This clearly affects everyone in the house, but my little postmodern heart has trouble with practices that feel “official” or “group control-ish.”

But I’ve often wondered if more focal – historic – practices (evening prayers, for example) would help or harm a community like ours.

Just acknowledging that Super Tuesday happened. Yes, I invited some people over to watch election returns and eat ice cream. Who wouldn’t? But as far as political commentary, I’m just watching along with everyone else.

A little confused on how CNN is showing Clinton with the most delegates, but Obama is claiming the opposite.

Noticed Huckabee opened his speech last night with Biblical allusions, comparing himself to a “small smooth stone” and his campaign’s budget to a “widow’s mite.” He didn’t say anything more direct – I wonder how calculated his religious statements are by his staff – “just enough to be recognizable by evangelicals, but not enough to scare anyone?” Though he said he’s still in it (indirectly claimed Romney is out of it), most people are saying he can’t win (though here’s a random comparison of him and the movie The Passion of the Christ).

Time Magazine’s five quick thoughts from yesterday.

And ultra-conservative James Dobson declared yesterday morning he would – under no circumstances – vote for McCain. With McCain’s clear win, Dobson has probably proved his waning influence. I’m not a fan in the first place, but I’m even more disappointed when a Christian leader associates political process things like judicial filibuster in the senate (which McCain helped preserve) as negative – almost immoral. As if it is not conservative or even not biblical. Neither characterizations make sense. And you’ve gotta think he’ll support it as soon as it’s used to block a liberal judge he is not in favor of.