‘Leaving the Church to find God’: an excerpt from Tin House’s conversation with Paul Harding

Former rock-band-drummer-turned-author Paul Harding shocked the hell out of lit-types recently by winning the Pulitzer Prize for his debut novel Tinkers. Published by an indie, non-profit press at the NYU School of Medicine (no joke), Harding’s fictional account of a dying man’s hallucinatory meanderings has become the darling of struggling, art-minded authors everywhere.

My review of the book is on the way. In the meantime, take a moment to enjoy this surprising quote touching on theology, atheism, and quantum mechanics from his recent conversation with Tony Perez from Tin House:

TP: There’s a quiet spirituality to your work that I think is lacking in a lot of contemporary fiction (your old teacher Marilynne Robinson being an obvious exception) and I’ve heard you’re a big reader of theology. I wonder if you could talk about how your work or your thinking is influenced by people like Karl Barth, or Martin Luther. Or even someone like William James?

PH: All the people you’ve just described I think you can sort of line up in parade formation, they all come out of the same tradition—reformed Protestant thinking. I grew up here in Boston kind of a neutral atheist. I read my Nietzsche and what not, but I wasn’t a dogmatic atheist—I wasn’t doctrinaire; I didn’t have anything against religion. And then after having studied with Marilynne Robinson for a number of years, it occurred to me that if I asked her where the source of her aesthetic, and intellectual, and soulful kind of integrity and sophistication came from, she would tell me that it was her religion. She would tell me that it came out of her reading in this tradition. Given that I respect her so much, I would be inclined to respect her answer, her own accounting of herself. So I just started to read these things and I found them to be incredibly beautiful— deeply concerned with narrative and cosmology. It was so much more than the popular sand kicking you hear in the press between Richard Dawkins and Creationists—the crummy little cartoon versions of these things. The more deeply I read into them, the more I realize that if you isolate yourself from these traditions of thinking, you’re isolating yourself from most of Western intellectual history, up until, almost post-World War II thinking. It almost feels like a type of censorship, like “religion’s bad for you, don’t bother looking at theology.” I read someone like Karl Barth and it’s just the most beautiful, aesthetically pleasing human thought I’ve encountered. In Tinkers, since it’s fiction, I’m not under the obligation to engage in apologetics or offer proof, but I can explore things. I can play around with them dramatically and aesthetically, and sort of see how these people account for themselves in terms of spiritual conceptions of who they are in the Universe.

If you look at Emerson, he was a Unitarian minister and he left the church. The common rap about that is, you know, he left the church for greener pastures. But if you look at the tradition out of which he came, there’s a strong argument to be made that he left the church to find God. That’s the Protestant tradition—at least the writing and thinking with which I’m familiar. There’s a built-in anti-authoritarianism, the presumption that the institutional church is a human construction; it’s always going to ossify, and it’s antithetical to truly pious thinking. For them, really what it comes down to, is you and scripture. The Unitarians broke away from the Calvinists; the Calvinists broke away from the Lutherans; the Lutherans broke away from the Catholics; the Catholics broke away from the Jews; the Jews broke away from the Babylonians. That’s a beautiful tradition, and seems hardwired into this understanding of what pursuing religion and that kind of thinking is. The best theologians, for example Karl Barth, view the Bible as a work of literature, and that does not demean its normative or holy authority. He’s a close reader of a text. It’s a much more sophisticated use of the imagination and the intellect, and just makes you think about what we talk about when we talk about God. When you go back to someone like Dawkins, he just perverts all that stuff by saying, “if you believe in God, you believe in an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne.” Of course that’s ridiculous. But then you realize that people like Dawkins have never read a word of theology, they rely on popular prejudice—or all this material positivism that they misheard in their, you know, Wittgenstein 101 class. If everything is made of matter, and there is no such thing as the spirit, then all that means is that we have no idea what the nature of matter is. I’m perfectly willing to grant that everything is made out of stuff, but that just means that we don’t really know what stuff is. To me, theology and poetry and art go hand-in-hand with physics. That version of materialism is totally antiquated, out-dated, Newtonian mechanics. They’re always complaining that it’s not testable, it’s not falsifiable, but the most sophisticated quantum mechanical experiments only make the nature of matter more ambiguous than it ever was before—it’s all observer dependent. If you’re a writer, there’s a very cool anti-realist strain in quantum mechanics. Supraluminal influence and observer dependent reality—all of that speaks to the experiential and participatory nature of human consciousness. When translated into fiction, it’s part of character. There’s a passage in Tinkers where Howard is walking through the woods, and when he turns around to look at his wagon, he’s certain that every time he turns his head, everything behind him disappears or changes. In a way, that’s just fooling around with quantum physics, just in a narrative sense.

Love, love, love that bit about Wittgenstein 101. So funny. Seriously, read the whole article. And the book.

Technorati Tags: art, Church, Culture, Paul Harding, Physics, Theology, Tinkers

Fathering daughters in an age of fetishism

Recently a friend on facebook linked to this article (Prime Time TV ‘Objectifies and Fetishizes’ Underage Girls, Study Says) and asked the question:

For parents with daughters like me, how do you counteract this kind of cultural message? Is it important to?

For whatever it’s worth, here’s what I’ve tried to teach my three girls:

1. I am deeply, over-the-moon in love with them,
2. Being a woman is not a moral crime,
3. They have far more power than they realize and must wield it wisely.

I’ve noticed that kids often hold God responsible for the parents they are given (#1), the way they have been made (#2), and the destiny they see (or don’t see) unfolding before them (#3). If Jenell and I do a good job with all three above – which usually has more to do with asking the right questions than with giving the right answers – they will probably come to see God as good in spite of evil, see themselves rooted securely in that goodness, and see it as their responsibility to reflect that goodness in an uncertain world.

I think all this tends to make the inane superficiality of pop culture rather transparent.

Oh, and…

4. Boys are stupid and will say and do nearly anything to get what they want from a girl, but the decent one’s usually come to their senses sometime in their mid-to-late twenties.

Just kidding on that last one.

Sort of.

So, how do you counteract the message of fetishism with your girls (or boys, for that matter)?

Technorati Tags: Culture, Daughters, Family, Parenting

Does it entertain? Does it instruct? Yes. Yes it does.

Technorati Tags: Culture, George Saunders, Homelessness, Literature, non-fiction, Tent City, U.S.A.

Cultural reality check: Sara Bareilles

The churches I attended growing up regularly engaged with pop culture  – in a condemning way. Pastors often read rock-and-roll lyrics from the pulpit as evidence of the  “satanic” influence of the world.  Back then we still thought we were in charge.

As an adult I’ve enjoyed engaging with culture from the perspective of a missionary. That is, borrowing from the anthropologist, I enjoy trying to understanding this strange culture into which I’ve been called. When I quote here from pop songs, films, and literature, that is the perspective I tend to represent. Most of you know this already, but one thing is painfully obvious:

We’re no longer in charge (and it’s a good thing, too).

Case in point: Sarah Bareilles’ recent song King of Anything. Using thinly veiled evangelical catch-words and images, the lyrics portray the response of a woman who is triumphantly bitter about being evangelized. That kind of expression simply wouldn’t be tolerated in Christendom.

If you haven’t heard it already, I’ve embedded the lyrics and video below. Listen for yourself. Then, post your thoughts. What can we learn from Sarah’s song? How should we respond?

Keep drinking coffee, stare me down across the table
While I look outside
So many things I’d say if only I were able
But I just keep quiet and count the cars that pass by

You’ve got opinions, man
We’re all entitled to ‘em, but I never asked
So let me thank you for your time, and try not to waste anymore of mine
And get out of here fast

I hate to break it to you babe, but I’m not drowning
There’s no one here to save

Who cares if you disagree?
You are not me
Who made you king of anything?
So you dare tell me who to be?
Who died and made you king of anything?

You sound so innocent, all full of good intent
Swear you know best
But you expect me to jump up on board with you
And ride off into your delusional sunset

I’m not the one who’s lost with no direction
But you’ll never see

You’re so busy making maps with my name on them in all caps
You got the talking down, just not the listening

And who cares if you disagree?
You are not me
Who made you king of anything?
So you dare tell me who to be?
Who died and made you king of anything?

All my life I’ve tried to make everybody happy
While I just hurt and hide
Waiting for someone to tell me it’s my turn to decide

Who cares if you disagree?
You are not me
Who made you king of anything?
So you dare tell me who to be?
Who died and made you king of anything?

Who cares if you disagree?
You are not me
Who made you king of anything?
So you dare tell me who to be?
Who died and made you king of anything?

Let me hold your crown, babe

Technorati Tags: Culture, Evangelism, Missiology, Music, Pop Culture, Sarah Bareilles

James Smith roughs up Brett McCracken a bit for lacking a theology of culture

There’s a reason James K.A. Smith (right) is a rising star in the Christian intellectual world: Aside from being brilliant – which isn’t all that noteworthy in academia – he’s an immensely effective and even entertaining communicator – a quality that is frustratingly rare in academia. Smith brandishes these gifts ferociously in recent books like Desiring the Kingdom and Thinking in Tongues.

It hardly seems fair, then, when Smith turns his critical attention to populist fare like Hipster Christianity by Brett McCracken, concluding he “lacks a theology of culture.” It’s nothing less than brutal.

I link to it, and quote from it, here because the mindless bashing of Christian movements en masse that continues to flow from from the conservative evangelical camp has swelled to such a ridiculous volume that it nearly deserves it’s own niche publishing category. I think Smith does a fine job of calling McCracken out for his lack of depth and thoughtfulness.

That Smith has at least one foot solidly in the Reformed camp makes his critique all the more refreshing. Here are my favorite parts:

While McCracken’s analysis perhaps pertains to a bunch of suburban kids who have adopted hipster as a style—just as they might have adopted “urban” as a style—his analysis doesn’t even touch those students I know who, from Christian convictions, have intentionally pursued a lifestyle that rejects the bourgeois consumerism of mass, commercialized culture. They shop at Goodwill and Salvation Army because they have concerns about the injustice of the mass-market clothing industry, because they believe recycling is good stewardship of God’s creation, and frankly, because they’re relatively poor. They’re relatively poor because they’re pursuing work that is meaningful and just and creative and won’t eat them alive, and such work, although not lucrative, gives them time to spend on the things that really matter: community, friendship, service, and creative collaboration. And despite McCracken’s misguided claims about autonomy and independence (192-193), the Christian hipsters I know are actually willing to sacrifice the American sacred cow of privacy and independence, living in intentional communities as families and singles, working through all the difficulties and blessings of “life together” as Bonhoeffer describes it. In short, the lives of the Christian hipsters I know are a gazillion miles away from being worried about image or trendiness; they live the way they do because they are pursuing the good life characterized by well-ordered culture-making that is just and conducive to flourishing—and this requires resisting the mass-produced, mass-marketed, and mass-consumed banalities of the corporate ladder, the suburban veneer of so-called success, as well as the irresponsibility of perpetual adolescence that characterizes so many twentysomethings who imagine life as one big frat house.

And:

The Christian hipsters I know are pursuing a way of life that they (rightly) believe better jives with the picture of flourishing sketched in the biblical visions of the coming kingdom. They have simply discovered a bigger gospel: they have come to appreciate that the good news is an announcement with implications not only for individual souls but also for the very shape of social institutions and creational flourishing.

Also:

If McCracken is lamenting the fact that Christian colleges are producing alumni that are smart and discerning with good taste and deep passions about justice, then we’re happy to live with his ire. The fact that young evangelicals, when immersed in a thoughtful liberal arts education, turn out to value what really matters and look critically on the way of life that has been extolled to them in both mass media and mass Christian media—well, we’ll wear that as a badge of honor.

And last, but not least:

It turns out [McCracken is] just worried that young Christians might be (gasp!) smoking and drinking a bit too much and have not sufficiently considered injunctions about dress in 1 Peter 3. Well, yes, indeed: those do seem like quite pressing matters for Christian witness in our postsecular world. By all means, let’s get our personal pieties in line. For as McCracken sums it up, “the Christian hipster lifestyle has become far too accommodating and accepting of sin” (200)—and by this, he means a pretty standard litany of evangelical taboos (did I mention sex?). It’s funny: my Christian hipster friends think conservative evangelicals have also become too accommodating and accepting of sin, but they tend to have a different inventory in mind—things like the Christian endorsement of torture and wars of aggression, evangelical energies devoted to policies of fiscal selfishness, and lifestyles of persistent, banal greed.

Emphasis most definitely added.

Technorati Tags: Brett McCracken, Culture, Hipster Christianity, James K.A. Smith, Theology

What (Four) Teenagers Think About Religion And Our Biggest Problems Today

As part of a grad school class I’m taking I asked four teenagers three questions about their main concerns in life and how religion or faith impacts those concerns. I thought it would be fun to ask Pastoralia readers those same questions. So first, here are the questions and the responses I received from 4 teenagers:

1. What 3 issues stress you out most?
2. What are the 3 biggest challenges facing our world?
3. Does religion/faith help you deal with these concerns better or make them more difficult? How?

Respondent #1:

1. Figuring out what my priorities are, figuring out how to discover myself, and figuring out how to maintain grades without going crazy knowing that next year is going to be tough and that I procrastinate. I also dislike how my response to having a ton of things to think about is not thinking about any of them. I’m a very relaxed and mellow person… See more though, stress doesn’t get to me too much.
2. Disregard for the environment, poverty/greed, and parochialism.
3. Religion and faith do little for me. I see and respect how faith motivates people and gives them a sense of purpose, but it would be stupid to say something like “We are God’s instruments.” That belittles free will and extraordinary individual morality. What I mean is no because putting things in the hands of some unknown might make you feel better, but it does little to help your problem. Religion does get in the way of the global warming challenge though because some people deny science and endorse the supernatural.’

Respondent #2:

1. School, Grades, finding a job
2. Global warming, america doesnt care what other people think of them, the global and national economy
3. I don’t know, i would say neither. to say that i think religion helps in MY opinion wouldn’t be how i feel but i have this guilt feeling that if i say no it doesnt it would be wrong. i think saying that religion helps … See moreis something we have been accustomed too and for the most part is accepted by society. i dont think i could say yes or no though in regards to religion/faith

Respondent #3:

1. Thinking about college, self-image, and excelling at what is important to me.
2. Realizing the worth of a human being, disreguarding race or gender. Finding more diplomatic ways to solve world issues if possible. Letting go of selfish natures to benefit those in greater need and those with less opportunities.
3. My faith helps me because it gives me hope that someday these issues might be solved or improved. it pushes me toward the direction of helping make a change.

Respondent #4:

1. Future, Family,
2. World Hunger, Religious Conflicts, Environmental damage.
3. No it does not help me, religion tends to create conflict, especially in today’s world. We don’t need religion to solve our as well as the world’s problems or challenges.

Does this tell us anything useful about the worldview of these teenagers? In your experience, to what extent are these responses typical of American teenagers? What does this mean for churches and church leaders?

And, finally, how are their responses similar or different from your own?

My brief thoughts:

• Teenagers today (or, these teenagers at least) are way smarter than we give them credit for.
• Their concerns are more or less exactly the same as mine.
• With the exception of one, there is very little connection between daily concerns and religion/faith and the connection between religion/faith and global concerns is mostly negative. I myself have a great deal of hope for how faith can impact global concerns, but quite frankly I share the disconnect between my faith and my daily stresses. If anything, being a person of faith has only increased by level of concern and responsibility.

Technorati Tags: Church, Culture, Religion, Surveys, Teenagers

Bumper Sticker Theology: Coexist?

California is a rich repository of odd theological statements encapsulated in pithy sayings on the back of people’s cars. Today I saw this popular bumper sticker on a Lexus:

Underneath this peacefully enlightened plea for inter-religious civility was a license plate frame which stated:

Come over here…

So I can smack you!

Sort of changes the tenor of the sticker doesn’t it?

Technorati Tags: bumper stickers, Coexist, Culture, Peace, Theology, Violence

Pick My Spring Seminary Classes For Me

UPDATE #2: Sadly, while I was able to get into MC535, all the other classes were full. Some of you are thinking, “That’s what he gets for waiting until the last minute!” but believe it or not, I’ve always waited until the last minute and never had any trouble before. (Sigh.) So, my second class is now “CN568: Theological and Pastoral Perspectives on the Contemporary Family,” which I’m still excited about because the professors – John and Olive Drane – are stellar.

UPDATE #1: The people have spoken! According to your votes I will be taking “MC535: The Emerging Church in the Twenty-First Century” and “TH550: World Religions in Christian Perspective” (see vote totals below). Thank you for voting, classes start tomorrow!
______________________________________________________________

I need to take two Fuller Seminary courses this Spring and I’m having a hard time choosing. So, I thought, why not let my friends pick for me? You can skip to the poll below to choose two classes for me, or take a minute to read the course descriptions:

MC535: THE EMERGING CHURCH IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Identifies characteristics of churches in postmodern and post-Christian contexts. Examine and consider how these communities embody their faith and what value it has for the broader Church. Explore the dynamics of the sacred/secular split, forms of community, contextual forms of apologetics, hospitality, new forms of participation, creativity, leadership, and the spirituality of everyday life. Theologically, the class will explore how the reign of God might manifest in worship, in formation, and in witness in postmodern cultures.

• Upside: I already know a lot about this subject, it’s highly relevant to my mission, and it’s taught by a friend, JR Rozko.
• Downside: I already know a lot about the subject : )

TH550: WORLD RELIGIONS IN CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
The purpose of this course is twofold. First it will provide an overview of the world’s major religions–Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Sikhism–focusing on their emergence and history, core beliefs and practices, religious texts and interpretations, as well as contemporary influence and expressions. Second, this course introduces various approaches on how Christianity relates to other religions and religious pluralisms, technically known as the “theology of religions.” We will critically discuss Catholic and Protestant proposals and responses and attempt an outline of Evangelical approach. Case studies will be conducted regarding Islam-, Hindu-, Buddhist-, and Sikh-Christian encounters.

• Upside: New material for me, plus living in SoCal, this should be highly relevant : )
• Downside: I don’t know what to expect from a Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen class.

OT502: THE HEBREW PROPHETS
The course studies the contents of the Former Prophets (Joshua to Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah to Malachi), their possible historical backgrounds, different approaches to their interpretation, and their significance for us today.

• Upside: I’m really into the OT lately, and it’s taught by Fuller legend John Goldingay, whose Writings course I very much enjoyed.
• Downside: I’ve had plenty of OT and NT classes in my life. At this stage of my education it’s nice to take more specialized courses, like…

TC530: THEOLOGY AND FILM
This course will consider a theology of culture by focusing on one particular aspect: theology and film. The course will (1) view, discuss and analyze a multicultural and global selection of films, (2) provide the student methodological and critical perspectives for engaging culture, both from the humanities and the social sciences, and (3) explore theological and biblical perspectives foundational to theology and film criticism.

• Upside: This fits the “Theology and Culture” focus of my degree perfectly, and I very much enjoyed the Theology and Contemporary Literature course taught by the same professor, Rob Johnston.
• Downside: I’ve already taken a film course (Engaging Independent Film), and this would probably be somewhat redundant, as that course drew heavily on Johnston’s work.

So, those are your (my) choices. Please pick two in the poll below before Sunday afternoon:

Technorati Tags: Culture, Emerging Church, Film, Fuller Seminary, John Goldingay, JR Rozko, Old Testament, Rob Johnston, School, Theology, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

Mark Driscoll Gets Lost in Translation

Mark Driscoll recently ranted about the movie Avatar, calling it the most “Satanic” movie he’s ever seen, and doesn’t understand how any Christian could watch it and not absolutely condemn it. Well…I’m a Christian and I liked the movie (I know it’s fashionable to hate on Avatar these days, but I was thoroughly entertained. No, it wasn’t fine cinema, but is that really what you expected from James Cameron?). It also contains some fascinating commentary on our culture and the deep spiritual longings of humanity, all of which are relevant to Christianity and not all of which are opposed to Christianity.

This reminded me of an old post I wrote last year (on an old blog) while I was at The Sundance Film Festival. So, first Mark’s 3-minute rant (if you care to watch it), then my old post below:

_____________________________________________________

Sundance/Windrider Day 3: Lost in Translation (January 22, 2009)

I’m three days into my time here at The Sundance Film Festival and it’s been amazing. I’ve seen 10 movies so far – 4 shorts and 6 features, plus Q&A sessions with directors and cast members after every film – and I’ve noticed a few surprising things about the culture of film on display here.

There are some amazing artists who are asking important questions about life, and telling incredibly compelling stories of suffering, loss, hardship, redemption, love, joy, and spirituality. Again and again, the common ground that exists between the filmmaker’s values and the values of the biblical narrative have taken me by surprise. There is very little ambiguity in the depictions I’ve seen of yearning for love and security, or the necessity of risking one’s life in order to find it, or the desperate need for justice in situations of appalling human suffering and depravity.

Through cinema, the world is shouting for the things of God. Sadly, as far as the church is concerned, they’re using the wrong language.

Most of these directors and producers are completely secular. I don’t necessarily mean they’re ireligious – many aren’t – but their worldview, and the vernacular utilized to convey their art is utterly unfamiliar to the Christian subculture. I think this makes for a distance between these two groups that is more perceived than actual.

Tonight after the screening of Sin Nombre (an intensely powerful and disturbing film about illegal immigration) an audience member from our group asked the director whether he’d intended to depict contrasting images of “conditional vs. unconditional love” in his portrayal of two specific relationships, one involving mercy, the other betrayal.

It was a good question. The story delved deeply into the complexities of acceptance, rejection, trust, loyalty, and faithfulness between the characters.

Still, the director balked. In a very polite way he basically said he didn’t know what to do with the phrase “unconditional love,” and preferred to think of those character dynamics in terms of “families in flux,” forming on the one hand, and dissolving on the other.

In other words, his answer was “yes.” He absolutely intended (among other things) to depict broken covenant loyalties on the one hand, and faithful covenant loyalties on the other.

The problem, I think, is language itself. “Unconditional love” is conservative evangelical church vernacular for the kind of love that is most valuable or virtuous (and only comes from God). It’s a staple teaching point in most evangelical youth groups. But in my experience secular people rarely ever use that phrase, even if they might be talking about the same spirit.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen or heard this sort of thing in the last few days, either in the films themselves or the Q&A sessions. God is profoundly at work through many of these films, but he’s usually disguised in a culture and a language that is entirely foreign (and often frightening) to prevailing Christianity.

If we want to be conversant with the culture we find ourselves in we’re going to have to go out of our way to learn the language by listening deeply, patiently, and charitably. Once we do, we may indeed find that these powerful cultural prophets only want the things of God, but not God himself. However, we may discover that, at least for some, they were never rejecting God, only what we said and what they heard.

Technorati Tags: art, Avatar, Christianity, Culture, Film, Mark Driscoll

5 Arguments Against the Use of Marketing and Media in Church

American Evangelicalism has always been media savvy. From Charles Fuller to Billy Graham, mass media has been used for conveying the information of the gospel to multitudes. More recently, we’ve pressed into television, advertising, branding, and multi-media to attract crowds and convey the message. Video-venues (part of the multi-site church approach) are the latest accepted innovation.

Simultaneously, the American church is in a crisis of attendance and character and the missional conversation is partly about rethinking ecclesiology for just that reason. I think this necessitates rethinking our use of modern marketing methods and media technology as well. I have five concerns:

The Tendency Toward Deception:
Advertising is an inherently deceptive medium. Whether we’re producing a T.V. commerical or designing a flyer or video, the purpose is usually persuasion and that plays upon our innate desire to be seen as better than we really are. Rather than check this tendency with open humility, we often go the other direction: creative exaggeration. Brochures, websites and promotional videos portray “shiny happy people” and the promise of easy triumphalism through pixelated filters. This is the peddling of image through desire, just like a typical car commercial or beer ad. The subtle yet powerful message is, “Buy what we’re offering and you can be just like the people in this ad.” But we can never be like the people in those ads because they don’t actually exist.

Emotionally targeted advertising is a poor substitute for having an identity derived from being created in the image of God.

Artificially Exaggerating the Mundane:
One of the most effective means of containing people is to make ordinarily mundane things seem more exciting. On TV and film this is achieved through artificial “technical events” like cutting, panning, fading, adding musical scores, special effects, etc. All this adds the illusion of motion and depth to an otherwise boring experience (television and video stripped of ornamentation are inherently flat and boring).

We do essentially same thing with church services, youth gatherings, and childrens ministries. We build worship music sets and preach messages engineered to produce an emotional crescendo, or use the gimmicky minutia of American teenage culture as accouterments to the scriptural text. This kind of hype creates a false perception of reality and an self-defeating default perspective because we become over-stimulated to the point where the normal level of hype has now become the new mundane. When our old techniques aren’t working anymore we must ramp up to the next decibel.

Hype is a poor substitute for cultivating eyes and ears faith so we can recognize the movement of God in ordinary things.

The Mediation of Experience:
People tend to think they’ve experienced something simply because they saw it on television. Millions of tweens think they know the Jonas Brothers because of the Disney Channel. In my generation we thought we knew Monica and Chandler too.

A weekend outreach may become a life-changing experience for many people. But when we show a video recap of it on Sunday, hundreds or thousands suddenly own the experience. Because they belong to a church that does those kinds of things, they see themselves as participating in that reality. But they’re not. The more technically proficient the media, the more vicarious appropriation occurs and the more people are kept in a stasis where they don’t leave (the root meaning of the word entertainment). This same vicarious mediation can occur with preaching, and is likely to occur when the real people have been replaced by photon-facsimiles in video-venues.

Mediation through technology is a poor substitute for discipleship praxis.

The Trap of Professional Branding:
Being an American consumer requires I maintain an ongoing suspension of dis-belief. Wal-Mart tells me in a thousand ways that they care about my well-being. But they don’t. As a savvy consumer I’m aware of this. It’s an open secret I’ve known since I was 4 years old and my parents taught me to watch TV commercials with suspicion. But even though I know this I suspend my dis-belief while consuming because I want to believe their products will make me happier. I’m willing to try it on the off-chance it’s an accidental truth. This creates an internal dichotomy wherein I love the merchant (if I like their products) and distrust them at the same time. But I go along with the charade as long as they’re the best or the cheapest – or both. This is an ingrained consumer response to ever-escalating marketing efforts.

When churches engage in the same marketing practices we stimulate the same double-minded response. If the marketing materials are good, people are impressed because professionalism is a highly effective selling point; the appearance of competence makes the suspension of dis-belief easier. But what we reap in return is not covenant commitment, it’s brand loyalty. This cripples churches in the long run because it’s only a matter of time before someone else offers a better or cheaper Jesus product. Worse, it debilitates the believer’s capacity for faith because our implied message is that Christianity is just another dubiously-motivated product in the marketplace.

Branding is a poor substitute for genuine spiritual power.

The Deterioration of Kinship Communities:
Mass-communication is inherently fascist-leaning because it atomizes and immobilizes people in order to shape behavior (there’s no need for dictatorship in nations saturated by television). The result is passive consumer-spectators. This same phenomenon occurs in churches that depend on mass media. There’s a reason for this: small communities (families, tribes, etc.) adhere to one another through gifts, mutuality, and affection, and they communicate values and traditions through those resulting kinships. That is the currency of small groups. But among larger populations people can’t maintain a plenitude of kinships. That’s where the mass media and the marketplace enter. The marketplace allows for the mediation of relationships in a large population because cash allows for interaction liberated from relational obligation. Mass media fills the communication gap created by the loss of kinships and, in a feedback loop, supplants them at the same time, driving the population toward the market instead. Hence, the larger the group the more consumer-oriented it must become by necessity, the more it must rely on mass media to create unity, and the more the population will be passivized. In fact, the larger the population, the more it is necessary to create passivity in order to govern. I’m convinced this is a major reason why mega-churches struggle to become genuinely missional.

Mass media and marketplaces are poor substitutions for genuine community.

Let me be clear: I’m not suggesting that media can’t be utilized by the church with integrity. I think it can be, and I have friends who do – but it must be done with tremendous caution keeping these inherent dangers in mind and countering them intentionally. Ultimately, I think the key is to use these media to tell the truth and distribute power – no small task given that these aims are generally opposed by the mediums which distort truth and aggregate power by design. Telling the truth and empowering people through mass media is somewhat akin to making peace with war.

Technorati Tags: Church, Consumerism, Culture, marketing, Media