theo|digital

Shane Hipps is a Mennonite pastor who I noticed wrote a book a couple years ago entitled The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture. I borrowed it and skimmed but never really read it, and now I’m realizing I’m gonna have to catch up, since Shane is starting to get some voice on these issues in the evangelical Christian leadership world.  I’d love to meet him and chat it up some time, since this is one my primary areas of interest.

Because so much of media ecology is simply unawareness, I had hoped another a fellow watcher of communications as culture would cultivate an imaginative view on ideas like “virtual community.” But here Shane makes it clear that he views online interaction as entertainment (“enjoy it, but don’t call it community, because it isn’t”).  This was somewhat disappointing to me (and not unusual, see my first post on this )

Scot McKnight posted a response at both Our of Ur and at Jesus Creed that asked Shane to consider the Jesus Creed community, a blog that does have a remarkable level a participation (both in volume and quality) compared to (most?) other blogs that often function as more soapbox than dialogue.

Over 40 commentors have contributed some amazing thoughts to this thread: Dan (4) points out that he doesn’t know Scot McKnight, and comes because the community is useful.  Makes sense to me.  I think utility is clearly a reason we both approach and stay in offline communities as well.  Eric (9) calls Jesus Creed a better community than any church he’s been part of in 20 years.  He cites questions and disagreement as key draws.  And these are clearly crucial in offline community as well!  Show me a community without conflict and I’ll show you “shallow.”  Chris E. notes that Scot’s experience is remarkably different than others because of his central role.  As a campus pastor at the center of a vibrant church for a number of years, I eventually realized myself that my experience was also remarkably different to those who knew only a few people in our church, or hung “near the edges.”  There really are positions and vantage points in communities that vary the experience.  Matt S. (14) sets up a thought experiment that makes me hopeful for deeper thinking on this, and Pat B (38) is wise to the net when (s?)he notes that blogs don’t have a natural format for extended conversation.

All this to say:  with not too much thought, we find a great deal of similarity between “virtual” community and “physical” community.

Next post (hopefully coming soon):  more on why I think Marshall McLuhan would argue with Shane Hipps four point analysis on virtual community.

Political moral insight is a law unto itself, independent. Such values are nature, reason, law. They are considered autonomous in that they are thought to be known otherwise than through revelation or worship. … Ordinarily the definitions of such concepts do not seem to be dependent on faith or on Jesus, although maybe we hold them to be vaguely supported by nature or “nature’s God.” In any case, we do not expect “worship” to tell us more about them. … The duties they lay upon us are different from what Jesus calls us to do. For example, a banker is called to save money or to lend it with interest, not to give it away or to lend it without interest. A soldier in battle is not supposed to love the enemy.

John Howard Yoder was a Christian Anabaptist theologian and ethicist. I’m reading Body Politics: Five Practices of the Christian Community Before the Watching World for my course this term:  Christian Ethics.

(Photo is one of mine:  the National Archives in Wash DC in Feb 2008).

“Body” is an ancient image for the human community. When I use it as a modifier, it pins down the awareness that each member needs and serves each of the others, that the whole is more than all of the parts, and that the interdependence of all is structured according to an already given plan, flexible and able to grow, but neither chaotic nor infinitely negotiable.”

John Howard Yoder was a Christian Anabaptist theologian and ethicist. I’m reading Body Politics: Five Practices of the Christian Community Before the Watching World for my course starting this term:  Christian Ethics.

As communion with the Sunday paper has replaced church-going [she writes in 1979], there is a tendency to forget that sermons had a one time been coupled with news about local and foreign affairs, real estate transactions, and other mundane matters. After printing, however, news gathering and circulation were handled more efficiently under lay auspices.

Such considerations might be noted when thinking about the ‘secularization’ of ‘desacralization’ of Western Christendom. For in all regions (to go beyond the 18th century for a moment), the pulpit was ultimately displace by the periodical press and dictum ‘nothing sacred’ came to characterize the journalist’s career.

She goes on to note that print culture broke the link between community and communication (we don’t often gather to hear the public speech at church or areopogus).  But “communal solidarity was diminished; vicarious participation in more distant events was also enhanced… links to larger collective units were being forged.”

Elizabeth Eisenstein still hold the definitive work the subject matter defined by her book The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (Volumes 1 and 2 in One).

In Christianity Today’s Leadership Journal this past week… missional has reached buzzword status to the point where it doesn’t mean what we meant when we started. I’ve noticed this around my seminary: I recall using it in conversation this semester to describe some of my ecclesiology, and several people agreeing in a way that was pretty sure we weren’t talking about the same thing. In this case, it was mostly just about social justice… which is part of it… but… his article is better than me trying to re-write it.
———-

Defining Missional (full article)
The word is everywhere, but where did it come from and what does it really mean?
Alan Hirsch | posted 12/12/2008

It has become increasingly difficult to open a ministry book or attend a church conference and not be accosted by the word missional. A quick search on Google uncovers the presence of “missional communities,” “missional leaders,” “missional worship,” even “missional seating,” and “missional coffee.” Today, everyone wants to be missional. Can you think of a single pastor who is proudly anti-missional?

But as church leaders continue to pile onto the missional bandwagon, the true meaning of the word may be getting buried under a pile of assumptions. Is it simply updated nomenclature for being purpose-driven or seeker-sensitive? Is missional a new, more mature strain of the emerging church movement?
…
First, let me say what missional does not mean. Missional is not synonymous with emerging. The emerging church is primarily a renewal movement attempting to contextualize Christianity for a postmodern generation. Missional is also not the same as evangelistic or seeker-sensitive.
Full Article

And don’t miss downloading his pdf chart of missional books for the last 10 years.

(Etching of Jesus is 1647 by Rembrandt)

O.C. Edwards writes an encyclopedia article on the History of Preaching:

There are several genres of Christian preaching, including at least the missionary or evangelistic, catechetical [teaching/training], and the liturgical [context of worship]. … Such a sermon may be defined as a speech delivered by an authorized person applying some point of doctrine, usually drawn from the biblical passage, to the lives of the congregation with the purpose of moving them to accept that application and to act on the basis of it

Clearly there is little in the New Testament that can be identified according to these criteria as Christian preaching. … The preaching of Jesus could be thought to provide an exception, but it fails to on at least two counts. First, since it’s content was the breaking in of the reign of God, and it refers only by implication to its proclaimer’s role in that inauguration, it is not, strictly speaking, Christian preaching.
Edwards Jr., O.C. “History of Preaching” in Willimon, W., & Lischer, R.. Concise Encyclopedia of Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Edwards goes on to invalidate most of Paul as a model for preaching as well. I’m not sure I could disagree more. If Jesus proclamation doesn’t fit out definition of Christian preaching, isn’t it time to examine our definition?

My model for “preaching” for a number of years has been modeled on Jesus, phrased perhaps as:

“Like Jesus, we use stories, (i.e. narrative, setting, character, plot (tension), etc) set in our down-to-earth lives to illustrate (<– too weak…embody?) the kingdom of the heavens—the subjective revealing the objective, the temporal as eternal. We tell stories contrasting what life is like inside the kingdom and outside the kingdom for the ears of four “rings” of people within earshot: the absolutely committed, the followers, the apathetic or curious, and the skeptics.”

This is my model of preaching, using what I find from Jesus. I know it’s not typical of whole streams of the church’s exegetical preaching. But I think this is one that many got wrong. I wonder what O.C. Edwards would think.

Fundamentalist Christian Bob Jones University recently published a formal apology for their long-standing policies of disallowing inter-racial dating, and not admitting blacks until the 1970s.

BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.  Read the entire statement.

A BeliefNet blogger has a great perspective on this, I think:  accept genuine repentance.

For me the interesting part is the language “ethos of American culture” and “counterpoint.”  It’s odd to think that as far apart as I’d naturally want to feel from BJU’s stance on things… this language in reference to culture isn’t that objectionable.  The difficulty would be if BJU would understand Christian counterpoint as wholy “other”—counterculture that is labeled only Christian—or if they allow for the reality that we’re natural born into a pluralistic American culture, and Christianity must modify and challenge that, but cannot replace.

It’s interesting to find “culture” used twice in BJU’s mission statement.  It begins, “Within the cultural and academic soil of liberal arts education…” and ends with “Bob Jones University seeks to maintain high academic standards, an emphasis on culture, and a practical Christian philosophy that is both orthodox and fervent…”  The former is really interesting: the context of a format for education as culture. The latter is curious in relationship to the race statement. Is the emphasis on “American culture” (and how to understand that? Christian culture as distinct from non-Christian cultures? American Christian culture? Culture as a neutral anthropological condition/construct?

Professor Emeritus C. John Weborg, 72 years old, is lecturing on his experiences on the combination of ritual and pastor identity.

When someone calls you to a death bed, do you know what to do? 
A pastor is someone who does rituals
People need someone who knows the words.

The Apostle Paul writes of apprehending what had apprehended him. [referencing Phil 3.9].  Ritual, using transrational thinking, using reflection, can sometimes help us apprehend what has apprehended us.

Quoting Aidan Kavanagh:
Ritual is a system of symbols rather than mere signs. Symbols being roomy, allow many different people to put them on, so to speak, in different ways. Signs do not. Signs are unambiguous because they exist to give precise information. Symbols coax into a swamp of meaning and require one to frolic in it.

Because he’s retired, we get only a few guest-lecture chances to hear from John Weborg.  Every time is worth it.

I’ve never posted on abortion, once I’m finished here, I still won’t have. The issue itself is remarkably painful and deserves compassionate, biblical, and thoughtful care.

This post is about Christian political reasoning.

As much as some pro-life voters want to say it’s not, nuance matters on the issue of legal abortion as well as US political office.  I think for me to say this is not to cave or be weak, it is to think carefully.  I say it again:  all-or-nothing arguments are not accurate when it comes to these issues.

Recently, I was forwarded a blog post by a Christian friend who is voting on the abortion issue. The post he cited is by Randy Alcorn, and it began helpfully concerning Alcorn’s interest in Obama as a pro-racial-equality, pro-environment candidate.  And the end of the day Mr. Alcorn says he will not vote for Obama because of the abortion issue.  While I definitely respect his position, I can’t agree with all his rhetoric. Here’s some comments:

Then the sad day came. I checked out Obama’s actual position on abortion and I was demoralized. I found that in every single vote related to the issue he’s favored abortion, its legality and even the killing of children who survive abortion.

Obama is definitely “pro-choice.” This is the Democratic party platform and he’s supported it. I can’t agree with him (or the party) on this issue.

But some facts should be clarified here. The most atrocious: that Barack Obama would allow a baby just born of a failed abortion to die (actually, Randy is stronger and says “kill”). If this is true, Obama is a monster!

Over-strong claims should be questioned from either side, and this one is awfully untrue. It defies common sense that it’s repeated.

Obama did vote “present” (not “no”) on the Born Alive Infants Protection act in the Illinois Senate. It’s also true that he was the only senator to speak against the bill on the floor. Opponents want to frame this to make him look almost evil, or without a conscience. But better put: he was the only senator to take the time to explain his vote. And if you read his explanation on the floor, his concerns aren’t anti-life. They are that he was pretty sure the way the current bill was worded, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit Court.

We forget that Obama was a constitutional law professor. He has some useful opinions on these things.

In one of many later interviews on the section, Obama further explains that the law was redundant. The current Illinois State law, and explicitly federal law finally signed into law in 2002 already require doctors to give life-saving treatment to babies born viable of botched abortions. Not to mention the hippocratic oath of the Illinois Medical Association. The statue was more a political move than a real piece of legislation.

I’ll stop my argument and agree that I think Obama could have voted better here.  But baby-killing kind of insinuations are powerful images that stick even when they’re more the result of bright paint than underlying substance.  In short:  it’s unfair to demonize this too much.

But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions.

Can we point out that this is loaded language? By that to mean, the real argument of the sentences lies “under” the actual statement. “He knows to say” implies strong that Barack Obama is lying.

If this is the charge (and this is rather serious), this one must be supported instead of insinuated.

Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.

This argument is a logical fallacy. Abortion cannot be = to rape, kidnapping, slavery, etc, because there is no wide-spread controversy on any of these issues. Therefore they must be approached differently. I believe abortion is morally wrong (as with rape of course), but over 50% of the country doesn’t.

Please read me carefully. I’m not saying actual morality is really determined by majority opinion. God only determines (and reveals) the beautiful and awful in his Creation. What I’m saying that it’s a fatally flawed analogy for democratically elected politicians in a pluralistic society.

John McCain wasn’t my first choice for president. But at least McCain’s a hero, he suffered for his country and fellow soldiers. And at least he thinks innocent children shouldn’t be slaughtered, and has consistently voted that way.

The hero language just doesn’t relate. :-7 I agree McCain’s a Vietnam hero. I also am not sure it relates to being a Christian and voting for Obama when it comes to abortion.

McCain has voted consistently pro-life in the Sentate.

Too bad Presidents don’t vote on legislation.

In fact, the President has little or no direct control on abortion in the United States. About the only thing they can directly control whether abortions on military bases overseas are federally funded. More on this in a second.

I am deeply concerned about the one, two or possibly three Supreme Court justices to be appointed in the next presidential term

The best link here would to any site showing George W. Bush as the presidential candidate in the 2000 election that was pro-life, would probably have to pick several judges, and if elected, would overturn Roe v Wade (like a debate transcript).

Let me say more directly: we’ve had a pro-life President for eight years. Has appointed two supreme court justices, one of them (wait for it…) … the Chief Justice!  But has the legality of abortion changed?

My implication is this: the President of the United States doesn’t have the power to end abortion in America. My conclusion is this: this is not what the thinking Christian votes on as a primary issue (an issue? Yes. The issue? Contradicts both logical sense and real life experience).  (Maybe this Doonsbury says it better than I am…)

Again, I’m not saying abortion is not a serious moral issue. I’m suggesting that a political vote for federal executive isn’t the key way to affect it.

If you listen to the candidates, it’s obvious that McCain/Palin would make a concerted effort to choose justices likely to reverse Roe v. Wade and it is equally obvious that Obama/Biden would choose justices most likely to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Here’s where it gets real hard to keep a straight face. McCain in 2000 ran in the presidential race on a platform where he would not seek to overturn Roe v Wade. (example: Guardian article 15 Feb 2000) It’s why National Right to Life was running radio ads against him.  Do we forget quickly? Mr. Alcorn worries that the younger evangelicals might be vulnerable to smooth talk, but I’m not sure if he’s the one being a little hoodwinked. This is Donald Miller’s concern. I agree with him.

Again, I don’t need to disagree with Mr. Alcorn on the moral issue of abortion… just questioning his clarity on the politics of it.

ps – Don doesn’t think Obama is the Messiah.  Neither do I.  Check out him poking fun of his campaign e-mails.

I’m already long, so I won’t go further into the ways that Obama has pledged to work towards the reduction of the number of abortions, or even his thoughts on variety of other essential life-issues that I believe Christians should care about like poverty and war.

My final disagreement isn’t on the topic of abortion. It’s the insinuation that those who vote for Obama are trying to be “cool” or be in the majority crowd. Maybe that’s the case for some. For me, I’m voting for Obama because of his fundamentally intelligent approach to a wide variety of complicated issues both at home and abroad. Especially abroad, because the President’s role has the most direct impact over military and diplomatic issues off our shores.  And I follow church planter Alan Hirsch when he mentions that the world opinion is quite toward Obama, and this really does mean something.

Well, I reach the end of one of my longest posts hoping I’ve been gracious, thoughtful, accurate, and loving.  We’ll see (I’m hope my friends will point out where I haven’t).  But this is honest to my thoughts right now.  I’m a Christian, I believe abortion is part of the moral despair of our society, yet I believe I can consistently vote for Barack Obama.

Iowa on 11 Oct:

Before McCain spoke, a Christian pastor offered a prayer that seemed to ask for divine intervention on his behalf. “There are millions of people around this world praying to their God — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that [McCain's] opponent wins for a variety of reasons,” Pastor Arnold Conrad said. “And, Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens.”

The McCain campaign said it did not condone the prayer.