I am attending this conference for the next few days in Claremont.
description…
Why “theology after Google”?
Progressive Christian theologians have some vitally important things to say, things that both the church and society desperately need to hear. The trouble is, we tend to deliver our message using technologies that date back to Gutenberg: books, academic articles, sermons, and so forth. We aren’t making effective use of the new technologies, social media, and social networking. When it comes to effective communication of message, the Religious Right is running circles around us.
Hence the urgent need for a conference to empower pastors, laypeople, and the up-and-coming theologians of the next generation to do “theology after Google,” theology for a Google-shaped world. Thanks to the Ford funding, we’ve been able to assemble a stellar team of cultural creatives and experts in the new modes of communication. We are also inviting a selection of senior theologians, and well as some of the younger theologians (call them “theobloggers”) whose use of the new media (blogging, podcasts, YouTube posts) is already earning them large followings and high levels of influence. For two and a half days, in workshops and in hands-on sessions, in lectures and over drinks, these leading figures will be at your disposal to teach you everything they know.
Excited to be with like-minded people and exercise my thinking a bit. Must also admit I’m wondering how this conversation can stretch beyond academics and the “haves” of this world. Will the playing field really be leveled by our postmodern reality, or further stratified by technology and wealth? My presupposition coming in is that people WANT to be more active and include the whole body of Christ in formation and theology, but will probably attempt to do so using new means that are not any more effective than the old ones.
They are streaming the conference
Stay tuned for posts from the conference…
Did you learn anything useful from it?
The heart of the conference is that we are in a post-google world. In other words, we have moved to an age of sharing, symbolized by the technology we use. We are “beta testing” everything ourselves (the control is in our hands instead of experts) and we see all sorts of “mash-ups” – where various things are being combined in new and innovative ways, creating altogether new realities. It’s a time of both/and where we can hit the “shuffle” button anytime we don’t like how things are. It’s an opportunity for cooperation and co-creation. Perhaps we are finally back in an age of discovery by all, where old paradigms go away as we create new ones together. very democratic and egalitarian. While there was plenty of technology in use, the heart of the matter is what it all represents on a deeper level. Here are some of my thoughts and questions that I’ve considered as aresult of the various speakers and conversations…
In light of the changes in our world (as symbolized by google/technology), who are we/who are we becoming? People continue to ask the fundamental questions of “who am I?” but as always, the world around us actually shapes HOW we answer that question. For example, someone tweeted during the session, “I’m more of an introvert, but online I’m an extrovert”. Which is the real me? Traditionally, I think, we would say that the real you is the one you are in person, and that online you only create a persona of your choosing. I think that many today would argue that the online persona is just as much you as anything else. As such, technology is changing how we define ourselves. My question, however, is: how much of who I am requires my physical presence/body? I am not only my thoughts. I am also not only my flesh. But somehow, I am both. My experience has been that there is something that happens in person – eye contact, physical touch, etc. that is not the exact same in other ways of connecting. But is that only based on my experience, and need not necessarily be true?
The conference also made me spend a fair amount of time evaluating my own participation in various technologies and consider some of the many changes taking place. I don’t want to be one to stick my head in the sand and think that some of these changes are just fads or will go away. In fact, even if they do come and go, they are facets of the world in which I live. However, I believe we must think critically (individually and collectively) about technology. Don’t just use it because it’s there. How often do we ask if something is healthy, loving, or truly beneficial. Our propensity is to get what is fastest and newest. But what if our focus was to achieve greater meaning instead? I also wonder if technology is one of the new dividing lines between the haves and have nots. I have access to information and you do not, therefore I am in the know, have power, etc. I also think there is an important question to ask about who decides what we talk about through our media/technology. This is truly a question of power and control. One speaker also challenged us to be willing to put our tools (as technology is properly understood as a tool) down in order to meet others. I also did some thinking about my own use of various technologies, what are the best ways to communicate, etc.
In my mind, some cultural questions were also raised. One is: why do people make the technological/material choices they do? In these choices, we can see what is important. For example, in SA, why do so many of my poor friends live in shacks without water, but they have tv’s? Or, they have no electricity or food, but they have a cell phone? What do these choices say about what is important? One possible answer is the great need for connectivity. And what is the primary way we connect in our global community? Through technology. A caution that comes to mind related to technology and culture is that we must not become people who know what other people should do or what is best for them. We can’t guess their issues and try to fix things for them. Rather, those “on the ground” must identify their own needs and work towards solutions. This is basic leadership, but I think fits a lot with the google idea of all of us participating. Lastly, where are our “chortles” (articulations that seem strange now but will be normal in years to come? The pace at which the world is changing makes it nearly impossible to look at today to determine what will be important or lasting in the years to come.
I think there are also some significant questions about God. First, what does grace look like in an age of over-information? How do we put aside what we do/can “know” to simply love? Second, what does it mean to “wait on God” in a world that doesn’t ever need to wait? Does God become un-relatable? And, what if the ways we think about waiting on God are really more about us than God. In other word, maybe our experience of the world has been that things take time, so we think God takes time….
Finally, the impact of technology and its seeming hyper-individualization leaves me with thoughts and questions about community. First, what do I really think about theology being in the hands of the people? Sure, it sounds good. And do “people” even want to play around with theology? Is it important, or how do we help people see it as important? Also, people complain about the selectivity of things like online community, but isn’t it just as true in real life? We don’t want to think so, but isn’t it? Third, I believe pretty firmly that my community is part of what defines me. So, what does this look like in our new context? Who is my community? I am still biased toward some sort of “live/in person” forms of community (though I think this can take many forms) and wonder if the spark of the divine that takes place when we are together can equally take place in disembodied realities/online realities? And, only individual communities can describe their own realities and needs. While we certainly can/must talk with people elsewhere seeking the same things, our processes and solutions must look different. I wonder how I Can help people participate more? If the church does not allow people life-long participatory learning/involvement, there are plenty of other venues they can turn to. People want to participate, have a voice. Finally, I did a lot of thinking about how we organize ourselves. Are we bounded or centered? What is our uniting factor – belief, mission, or relationship? What would it look like for people to be relationally committed and actually helping one another without all the rules and requirements?