theo|digital

In my last post on Shane Hipps, I meant to ask a couple more questions:

1. Hipps mentioned that a Second Life is in some way an extension of televangelism, and says “How you incarnate the gospel ina dis-incarnate setting? I don’t know how to do it.” People will know that I have a strong sense of agreement with part of what is being said here… I typically say “A relational gospel is best communicated relationally.”

My question for Hipps: doesn’t the ability for interactivity dramatically distinguish Second Life from TV or radio that rely on a one-way broadcast mode of communication? In this sense, TV is more like Power Point?

2. Hipps says that the idea of a “shared imagination of the future” is easy to find online, because you’ll automatically seek out those who think like you do. A real community has to do more real work to forge this, it seems like he’d say.

My question for Hipps: isn’t this a feature of affinity-based groups of any kind? For instance, junior high youth group? Mom’s with toddlers groups? Chess clubs? The local Democratic party office? People have chosen to associate with people that think similarly to themselves for much longer than online communities have existed. Sure, the School House Rock Fan Club can now have members in both Chicago and Australia. But aren’t these like-minded groups are just extensions of human behavior since specialization (accelerated by industrialization and mass literacy)?

Note instead groups that hold together disparate opinions or mirror real life communities, like the Shaw neighborhood of Washington DC where my sister and brother-in-law (http://justindc.vox.com/) and their church connect with a highly diverse neighborhood that struggles forward together. What do these add to our conversation?

Shane Hipps , Mennnonite pastor, recently commented on how “dangerous” it is to refer to “virtual community” as real community (watch the video in my last post ).  He had four points real Christian community that I think are helpful starting points for discussion, but perhaps not as dismissible as they appear.

Hipps’ four factors for meaningful community:

1. Shared history (identity and belonging)
2. Permanence (necessary for the shared history)
3. Proximity
4. Shared imagination of the future

Hipps says that virtual community captures the fourth more easily than “true” community, but “utterly leaves out” the other three.  But would Marshall McLuhan , Hipps key thought mentor, agree?

Extensions of humanity.  Basic to McLuhan’s thought is the idea the technologies extend natural human functions.  For instance, humans have legs which let them move from one place to another.  The technology of the wheel extended and enhanced that function… suddenly we can do a human thing on a larger scale.  Right?  An axe extends an arm, telephone extends voice, etc.

From this starting point, thought about technologies like an IM chat or Facebook should see certain uniquely human functions like conversation and relationship extended and expanded, not replaced.  (Walter Ong reminds us that invention of the alphabet did not replace the spoken word, the printed book hardly replaced teaching…  new technologies in communication augment, not replace)

Gotta look at the whole system.  A technology can’t be evaluated on its own, but in relationship to the system of human perceptions.  Specifically, the ratio of human senses is altered by extending technologies.  And it’s not the obvious one.  For instance the effect of radio was to alter… the visual sense.  The effect of the photo is auditory.

Before we can make theological judgments on a technology, we need to think more widely.  Rare is the person that lives only “online” (dark room, glowing screen, empty take-out boxes, no verbal interaction in weeks, etc).  Instead, what is the effect of our online interactions on our physical interactions (and vice versa).

Is proximity physical?  Hipps assumes that proximity is physical and that online interaction breaks the proximity.  But McLuhan assumes that while industrialization created explosion, homogeneity, and isolation (think the suburbs), electronic technology has an imploding, contracting energy effect.  ”Everybody in the world has to live in the utmost proximity created by our electronic involvement in one another’s lives…” he writes (Understanding Media, p54).  Further, he tantalizingly forces us to examine our definition of proximity:

It begins to become evident that “touch” is not skin but the interplay of the senses, and “keeping in touch” or “getting in touch” is a matter of a fruitful meeting of the senses, of sight translated into sound and sound into movement and taste and smell.

Theologically I’m with Hipps on the importance of the Incarnation, and I think this has implications on physicality.  This is a whole ‘nother post… but I’d suggest that “presence” is significantly more than physical (something we call upon every time we speak on sacramental theology), and that online technologies are not inherently gnostic.

Amputation and Numbness.  McLuhan reminds us that a primary effect of new technologies extending human communication function is a sense of over-stimulus and then “numbness.”  We become both hyper-aware of the technology (like in 1998 when we all were talking about going to “do our e-mail”), but also oblivious to its sense-altering effects (an exception McLuhan notes is some artists, who write histories of the future).  But an important feature of this is that we can’t immediately see the effect of new technologies… in fact, we don’t tend to see them until the next technology arrives, allowing us to look back.

From this perspective, it almost seems silly (pardon the strength) to speak emphatically about media effects on community.  Especially items like “shared history” and “permanence” can’t really be categories on technologies that have existed less than 10 years.  Google has only been a wide-spread part of our lives since 2001.  The Blogger platform I’m publishing only gathering popularity since 2004.  And Facebook?  While I was on in the “early days” when it was limited to a huge large universities, it has only become ubiquitous in the last 1.5 years.

(allow me to offer apologies again that while I’m responding to Shane Hipps video clip, I have yet to have examined his published book , which may have significantly more interaction with some of the above I’m mentioned…  I’m sure a conversation with him would be fascinating and fruitful).

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.

The other day, two of my seminary buddies were talking about Facebook. We all check it regularly, me especially as a brain-break between droning academic essays.

And a the tone of the conversation turned a way that I’ve heard often from Christians as they talk about Facebook. In it’s mild form, it’s expressed an embarrassment to admit that we spend a lot of time online. “I should totally spend more time with real people, huh?” In it’s strong, dogmatic form, it emerges as a theological diatribe against “fake community” and it’s distinct threat to the real community of the Church.

I’ve heard this over and over.

While I believe this is common wisdom, especially among pastors I’ve spoken with, I think it misses the mark. There’s much more here. So I’d like to start reflecting on Facebook, using both communication media and theology as conversation partners.

The Boston Globe produced a quick series of interviews called “the end of alone.” By buddy Ty sent it to me to open the discussion.

More from Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy (1982). (long I realize, but try it anyway)

Most persons are surprised, and many distressed, to learn that essentially the same objection commonly urged today against computers were urged by Plato in the Phaedrus and in the Seventh Letter against writing.

Writing, Plato has Socrates say, is inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only int the mind.  It is a thing, a manufactured product.  The same of course is said of computers.  Secondly, [Socrates] urges, writing destroys memory.  Thos who use writing will become forgetful, relying on an external resource for what they lack…  Today, parents and others fear that pocket calculators provide an external resource of memorized multiplication tables.  Calculators weaken the mind, relieve it of work that keeps it strong.

One weakness in Plato’s position was that, to make his objections effective, he put them into writing.

Writing and print and the computer are all ways of technologizing the word. Once the word is technologized, there is no effective way to criticize what technology has done with it without the aid of the highest technology available. Moreover, the new technology is not merely used to convey the critique: in fact, it brought the critique into existence. Plato’s analytic thought…was possible only because of the effects that writing was beginning to have on mental processes.

One of easiest ways to stress myself out is spin myself into a materialistic web of anxious theological book shopping.  The Logos/Libronix software is my downfall on this. When I first hit seminary, I realized a Bible software program could be really helpful.  Though my professors tend to use Bibleworks in class, I looked at the options and chose Logos for two reasons:  it seemed better suited for a well-rounded collection with commentaries, etc.  And it’s interface design was significantly better than Bibleworks (which has toolbars that look as if a programmer mashed them together using tinkertoys).

I had sticker shock when I first looked at the base-packages—they range from $150 to $1379.95—whoa! Because my degree was going to be more theological in nature and wasn’t going to allow me to do any original language work, I chose the Bible Study Library package. It really didn’t have everything I wanted, but I couldn’t justify jumping to the Scholars library, which had lots of resources I’d just never use (I really think they ought to have a better “between” package there… but maybe more on that another time).

So now I’ve slowly been buying additional resources to add to my library, which is fun but really expensive.

Until Nov 10th, Logos has a sale again for North Park students (they do this every semester), so I’m back to wanting more stuff.

Here’s the possibilities:

1. Interlinear LXX (Septuagint) – $109.  Greek version of the Old Testament.  Almost essential to word studies, etc.
2. BDAG/HALOT – $275.  The most authoritative academic standard lexicons (dictionaries) for Greek and Hebrew.
3. IVP Reference Dictionaries.  $120 Includes Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, and like eight others.
4. Anchor Bible Dictionary.- $250  More comprehensive, scholarly, and liberal than the IVP stuff, but will it be too redundant?
5. The TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, aka. “Kittel”) – $199.  Massive standard comprehensive theological dictionary.
6. The Word Biblical Commentary Series.  $700  Pretty much all my Bible professors (including McKnight and Snodgrass) say that you shouldn’t purchase one particular series of commentaries–each book tends to have it’s best author, and it can be published in any one of the major series.  But the upside to buying an entire series at once is PRICE… Word Biblical Commentaries tend to be $35-$40 each.  Buy all 60-ish volumes at once?   $12 each!

Argh!  I can’t afford all that!  I can’t afford even smaller portions of that.  I’m not sure who these prices are made for, but not for seminary students living off part-time ministry financial support and student loans.  But to take advantage of the student discount I can get (which helps cut these prices a little, but not enough), I should buy now, while I’m in school.  Plus, I can USE them while in school.  I’ve gotta think about this as long-term investments, I think.

Decisions, decisions…  the sale ends Nov 10.

This past week has accelerated me to the absolute top speed I have. I could tell sitting in certain classes that my brain was over-CPU crunched and starving for extra cycles. Last I night I had to leave Romans early just so I could recover enough to do three hours in Contextualization this morning. My reading list is ruling my life!

Meanwhile, this weekend I’ll be traveling for GCM down to central Illinois to help at I-Life’s Fall Retreat–leading two training sessions on mentor discipleship and leading the weekend-closing session including communion. I look forward to seeing old and new friends, talking about topics I’m excited about, and getting away from the books for a few days.

And should I get one of these??

Downside: camera is reportedly taking as long as 10 seconds to take a picture!  And it doesn’t have Microsoft Exchange push, but I don’t care.  It DOES have a few feature the iPhone doesn’t, including gMail push, an amazing new “compass” mode for Google Maps Street View (you just move the phone to “look around”), and the thing that’s kept me from jumping to Apple:  a full QWERTY keyboard!

ps – I realize I can’t “get” a Google Android.  The open-source operating system will show up on multiple phones in the next year, T-Mobile’s G1 being just the first new example.  And I agree with Don Reisinger–there’s no reason not to expect Google to do well, even in the face of the iPhone.

Well, I’ve used this blog for years on a variety of ministry and personal topics, including this past year the experience of heading to fulltime work in theological studies for a couple years.

This year marks an entire year of classwork finished, and I’m beginning to need to focus.  The main goal for the next 5-6 months:  choose a specific thesis proposal.

The general topic for my course of study is the “intersection of theology, communications, and culture.”  This means I’ve been focusing on communication studies approaches for looking at theology, but even this is difficult to navigate.

A communications approach could focus on how we communicate theology (e.g. evangelism or “preaching”) and therefore be classified in “ministry” or “missiology.”  Missiology has possibly done some of the best integrative work in communications and culture globally, some of the insights which are finally coming back to hit our local North American context.

OR it could instead look at the process of doing theology (theological reflection) itself.  Noting the cultural context and invisible context which creates fish-in-water assumptions during the process.  I’m particularly curious about the difference the generational distinction of current writing pastors and theologians compared to those that will have grown up in an information age (which I’m sorta on the bleeding age of… 30 years old).  How will the process and assumptions change?  This possibly gets into theological prolegomena (epistomology, etc), which I’ve not had tons of training in.  On the other hand, I can speak with a little bit of cultural knowledge from an online society.

OR I could look at a particular doctrine and the communications dimension within that doctrine, which probably less examines the process.  Ex:  what are the communicative elements of incarnation or sacraments or ecclesiology?

OR… I could look at a theology of communication, a la Vanhoozer’s text as a communicative act that demands a moral responsibility.

Anyway, I hope to upgrade this space to help me process my thoughts in the area, and invite my current friends, partners, but also new friends from the blog world to interact with me as I move through this year of research.

My friend Ben recently pointed out David Brooks Op-Ed in the NYTimes explaining the postmodern’s instinctive reaction to hype.  Plus, he says “organic skate sneakers.”  Wonderful.

In order to cement your status in the cultural elite, you want to be already sick of everything no one else has even heard of.

Read the rest…

Meanwhile, I’ve just left the high country, pausing just long enough to watch a Rockies game at Coors Field (while successfully avoiding actual Coors), and then head hurtling down (cf.  hurdling down or even hurling down) toward the sticky Midwest at speeds to thrill the heart.  Enroute, I visited both my old friend John, my other friend John, and my friends Eric and Amanda.  Sweet.

My random information bucket of things I found interesting today:

• Toyota will start selling a Prius hybrid with built in solar panels on the roof that power the air-conditioning. Only in Japan, though.
• A political story from Australia about a child posing nude for a magazine cover highlights the idea that any kind of standard societal sexual morality is out the window as soon as some of the older generations die. I’ve been predicting for a number of years that things like the legal age of consent will drop much lower, and acceptance of some child p-rnography will become mainstream. This isn’t scary as much as sad, and I believe rather inevitable. But Christians work best as as compassionate counter-cultural agents, anyway.
• Who knew that Mark Zuckerberg‘s college roommate Chris Hughes is the social architect behind Barak Obama’s social networking website: my.barackobama.org? It has almost 1 million members. The NY Times did a story.
• Related: Rolling Stone just published a bio of Zuckerberg during his Harvard-dorm days (not that long ago) that paints him as a calculating jerk who stole the Facebook idea from other students. Whether or not he’s a jerk, he’s clearly a genius programmer. Obama’s Chris Hughes wasn’t mentioned as one of the belligerents.
• Meanwhile, employees of Google are, interestingly, big contributers to Obama’s campaign. Though David Brooks points out that Obama’s fundraising, while significant with small donors, is hardly the grass-roots-only system that Obama’s campaign implies.
• Today’s younger college faculty are more likely to politically moderate than politically liberal.
• The Anglican church has now had the closest thing to a real split between conservatives and liberals. The former met in Jerusalem for GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) and drew up fourteen evangelically-worded statements of orthodoxy. Suprisingly, liberal archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams was “positive and encouraging.”