RyanBolger.com

From the Vatican yesterday, the Pope announced the topic of his talk for World Communications Day on May 16, 2010. His talk, titled “The Priest and Pastoral Ministry in a Digital World: New Media at the Service of the Word” will discuss the role of the Christian leader in social media. The specific focus of the talk will be on digital social media — given the growth of new forms of media in the last few years. A few takeaways for me:

Web 2.0 Ministry — A Priestly Calling
The Pope states that priests have as their duty to proclaim Jesus Christ, and because the church is the sign and instrument of communion with God, each priest must build up this communion. How? By responding as pastors, preaching the gospel within new forms of social media. The Pope quotes Paul in Corinthians, ““Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel” (1 Cor 9:16). He clarifies that the message of Christ is a contemporary one – it is not a relic from the past but speaks to us now, “God is near”.

Web 2.0 Ministry Requirements
The Pope establishes the priority for the web priest: first a priestly heart (closeness to Christ), then media savvy. Fruitfulness in ministry comes from Christ himself — formed by in prayer. This encounter provides a  “soul” to their outreach.

The Pope cites the importance of those ministering on the Internet. “Consecrated men and women working in the media have a special responsibility for opening the door to new forms of encounter, maintaining the quality of human interaction, and showing concern for individuals and their genuine spiritual needs.” He goes on to say that these ministers have three tasks: to help others sense the Lord’s presence, grow in hope, and draw closer to the Word of God. He makes it clear that there is no secular space — that even on the web, “the Lord can walk the streets of our cities.”

Web 2.0 Ministry Location
The Pope clarifies he is not simply talking about having a web presence (Web 1.0). Instead, priests are to be faithful witnesses, leading communities of “different voices” on the web. They are to use “images, videos, animated features, blogs, websites” to open up “new vistas for dialogue, evangelization and catechesis”. To what end? So that people will understand the life of the church and “discover the face of Christ.”

The church is called to offer a “diaconia of culture” within the digital world. We must prepare ways for people who seek to encounter the Word of God. The web offers a space for those of all religions and those searching for truth to encounter a sensitive pastoral presence from the church. It is here where the Christian may “embody the universality of the Church’s mission, to build a vast and real fellowship, and to testify in today’s world to the new life which comes from hearing the Gospel of Jesus”.

I’m impressed by the integration between theology and social media demonstrated in the Pope’s announcement. We do not see web ministry listed here as a second-rate ministry calling. We do not see the fear-mongering and warnings that the Internet is a scary place to dwell for Christians. We do not hear the message that because this technology mediates our presence on the web, we cannot mediate Christ’s presence in a significant way.  What we do see is a request for ministers to remain close to Christ so that the church might mediate Christ to others, as the people of God. We do see the church creating a space, a real space, on the web to serve others in humility.

The Pope finishes with an exhortation that speaks to me and hopefully to you, “I renew the invitation to make astute use of the unique possibilities offered by modern communications. May the Lord make all of you enthusiastic heralds of the Gospel in the new “agorà” which the current media are opening up.” Amen.

Billy Graham, a peerless communicator and the public face of evangelicalism for over sixty years, turns 90 today. Happy Birthday, Billy! Here are two entertaining videos that reveal his sincere and engaged interaction with those of other traditions…in this case, Woody Allen. 

Here is the first…

Here is the second…

My friend asked this in a previous post of mine. My answer? Well, Jesus didn’t live in a democracy, so that wasn’t a real option for him. I don’t think we can argue about voting in the abstract — is voting always a good thing or a bad thing? We need to ask what voting is doing in a particular context, whether voting is liberating or oppressing for those who live in that particular context. We will need to reason from the way of life Jesus lived in Palestine.

Jesus was about creating a community of the outcasts and marginalized and giving them a voice — transforming them from objects of God’s wrath to subjects in God’s kingdom. The ‘rule of Paul’ as some call it, was the idea that everyone got a voice when Christians got together. They didn’t know who the Holy Spirit might speak through, so, even those who were considered less important, had a voice at the gathering.

We need to ask, for a particular context and time, is voting a liberating or an oppressive activity? Was voting a Jesus-like activity in South Africa when blacks voted for the first time in 1994? I would say it was. Is voting a Jesus-like thing when a one-party government has 99% support? Probably not — voting would reinforce the illusion of support that those in power hold. 

So, the question must be asked — is this a time to vote, is it a liberating activity for those in our country or or not? Does this election offer a means by which those who have been shut out and lack a real role in the political process receive their voice?  I think for many in the country, voting in this election represents a turning of the tide. I believe we have, in this election, an opportunity to elect a person who represents voices that have rarely been heard, at this level, in the political process. Giving a voice to the voiceless is something Christians need to rally around. And back up with a vote. Today.

I created a slide (still rough) that merged the work of David Bosch, Andrew Walls, and Wilbert Shenk into a map of the local theologies in history. We often think of theology as revealing universals that will be true for all people in all cultures for all time, but in reality theology is more about answering local questions that reside in particular contexts at particular times. The church gets into problems when it asserts that one theology is to be imposed on all other churches or cultures, outside of the one local culture where and when that particular theology was created. Reflection about God and creation, through the Bible, and with the church, while immersed in the culture, needs to be done for every context and time…

Saatchi and Saatchi are moving from green to blue. They feel that green is a focus on the environment while blue connects that environment to people. Green focuses on the huge problems, but neglects the resources that might provide the solutions, i.e. people (blue).  Green remains pretty abstract; but blue connects the environment to people, making those same issues concrete and real. Green makes you choose environment over people, but blue helps you say ‘yes’ to both. Blue builds on green but takes it in a new direction. Here are some of their first thoughts on changes:

As I read this, I thought about the Christian faith — do churches have a color? Is it our task to come up with another color, as Saatchi and Saatchi has done, or is our task to work with the colors already there, the greens, the blues, and make them brighter — or maybe darker in places? Or maybe we create some sort of hybrid color? Or rainbows?

What are your thoughts — does the church have a color?

A while back, Andrew Jones noted the significance of the DailyKos. For the last week or so, I have compared the political/social/religious change strategy of Jesus, in his context, with dailykos founder Marcos Zuniga’s strategy in Taking on the System. My hope is to create a hybrid of the two — to see what Jesus-like social engagement might look like in 2008. In this 3rd installment of Jesus and Kos (part 1, part 2), I look at mobilization strategy.

Zuniga discusses the need to take charge and create a group of followers who exist outside the media and political establishment. He exhorts activists to raise up an army of volunteers who, although newbies at first, become experts as they participate in change. He encourages activists to go ahead without authorization — to not wait for the experts (the gatekeepers). These political change movements create alternative sources of information that come from the margins — the unauthorized. These bloggers do not possess the sanctioned qualifications to write or speak — they lack degrees or the right kind of experience. The expert gatekeepers get very upset about these boundaries breaking down, because the experts’ great influence depends on limiting those who are considered to be credible. Zuniga encourages activists to ignore them. Respect comes to those who create great content, not to those who have all the extra letters after their name. Finally, in this Chapter 2 — he writes that collaboration is key – networking with those who share similar passions.

Jesus created a movement outside the halls of power in Jerusalem. He was not a rabbi or official leader or any kind — he probably was a carpenter. He asked people to follow him, to join him in the movement. He did not wait to get approval; he created an alternative movement, unsanctioned by political/religious authorities. The gatekeepers became very frustrated by Jesus bypassing them — if people could be forgiven on the periphery, who needed the temple? To his hearers, Jesus taught as one with authority and not like the other religious leaders. It didn’t matter that he didn’t have the proper schooling — his message of the kingdom of God captivated his hearers. Like John the Baptists’ movement (a related network?), Jesus’ activities in Palestine engaged the populace and ignited a movement of political, religious, and social change.

How do we mashup these two mobilization strategies? Here goes: 21st century Jesus-followers must consider participating in a network of bloggers who exist outside the typical church, media, and political structures. These unauthorized writers, who have no seminary, media, or political credentials, create great content about God’s dream for people (the kingdom), both inside and outside the church. The message and the movement of these bloggers may frighten the gatekeepers, because gatekeepers form their identity around the idea that they,  and not these upstart bloggers, speak for God.

Although these new forms of community may not resemble anything like a congregation, is it possible we may be seeing a new form of religious structure emerging?

Wow — saw this yesterday. A woman, who had married a guy in “Maple Story” (an online virtual world similar to SecondLife), got angry and killed his avatar (online persona) after he divorced her in the virtual world. He reported his tragedy to police and they arrested her yesterday in Japan. For murder? No — but for illegally hacking a computer. As Manuel Castells said many years ago — it isn’t virtual reality, but real virtuality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_avatar_murder

In this part 2 of a mashup involving a read of Taking on the System by Markos Zuniga and the life of Jesus, we look at how to interact with gatekeepers. For Zuniga, social change process focuses on changing the conventional wisdom of a particular culture. If you shift conventional wisdom, then change will occur. From part 1, we saw that gatekeepers are those in the media and politics to whom we need to get approval in order to have a voice, to influence the conventional wisdom. Without approval of the gatekeeper, it is normally thought, social change cannot occur.

Who were the gatekeepers in Jesus time? It was those in religious/political leadership in Jerusalem. They guarded access to the temple, and they were able to declare who were legitimate members of the people of God and who were not. Jesus spent time with those who were considered outcasts, rebels, and sinners. These were those who were excluded from the promises of God.

So, what are our options regarding the gatekeepers today? Kos says we can bypass them, crush them, or influence them. Bypassers are those who self-publish their work, either in print media, music, or film. These artists let the media giants know they can do it without them. This scares the media gatekeepers and in many instances they quickly change their tune. Crushers are those that create an alternative to the media source and thus destroy the gatekeeper’s popularity or significance. Influencers are those who threaten the media outlet with irrelevancy. The media outlet must change or lose its market share. These three approaches in engaging the gatekeeper are similar and overlap a bit — they vary in the directness of their approach. What they share is pushing at the media gatekeeper’s fear of becoming redundant.

In a similar way, Jesus utilized these approaches in Palestine. He bypassed the gatekeepers — there were those who were sanctioned to offer forgiveness, to say who was “in” and who was “out”. By granting forgiveness to the outcasts on the periphery of society, who lived outside the religious establishment, Jesus rendered the temple irrelevant. By redrawing these social boundaries, political control passed from the religious establishment to Jesus. Jesus also crushed the gatekeepers — he turned over the tables in the temple as a direct action against the gatekeepers. He exposed, to all who were there, what the temple had become. He offered, in his person, another way. He also influenced the gatekeepers, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. For the most part, however, when we look at the social/political/religious movement of Jesus, the gatekeepers were bypassed. Jesus created a community that no longer required the blessing of those who held religious and political power.

To perform the mashup we must add another element to the puzzle. In Jesus’ day, religion and politics were one. The political leaders were the religious leaders and vice-versa. Today, they are separate. In order to envision what missional engagement for communities connected through social media might look like, we must engage the religious gatekeepers as well. With that in mind, here is a try at a mashup:

Jesus-following bloggers must change the conventional wisdom of the church and the media through creating an alternative message to the status quo of church and culture. As they connect online, they facilitate conversations that threaten to bypass the gatekeepers of traditional church structures. They also create their own media, i.e. writings, music, video, thereby threatening to bypass the media conglomerates as well. In addition, they push the culture to reconsider the practices that do not mesh with the dreams of God for humanity (what Jesus called the kingdom of God) – e.g the activities in society that disenfranchise people. In the end, these bloggers do not have the power on their own to be the “church”, to be the source of all their own media, or to create acts of justice. However, they can push both the church and the culture to listen to what they have to say and move the conversation and practices into more inclusive, just, participatory, and egalitarian directions. In turn, this will transform the conventional wisdom on what it means to follow Jesus.

More to come…

Yesterday I wrote a review of George Barna’s Revolution. Many fear that Barna dismisses the need for local churches. I don’t know if Barna goes that far. What Barna dismantles are particular sociological expressions of church — those of American congregationalism, rather than particular gatherings of believers. “Revolutionaries realize — sometimes very reluctantly – that the core issue isn’t whether or not one is involved in a local church, but whether or not one is connected to the body of believers in the pursuit of godliness and worship." Barna writes that one needs to be connected to a body of believers in the pursuit of God, he doesn’t say where and when, and his readers find that worrisome.

Technorati Tags: church, George Barna, globalization, modernity

(more…)

I had already been up this morning, typing on the computer.  My nine year-old son came out from his bedroom and said “I miss Chris.” My son rarely expresses this kind of emotion, feelings reserved for cousins and very special friends. “I know, I miss him too. I thought he was really funny.”

Doesn’t sound that unusual, but the thing is, my son has never met Chris, at least physically. Chris Sligh was just voted off American Idol. We started watching the show a few weeks into the season this year,and we got hooked. In these past few episodes, my son felt connected to him, relating to him in a special way.

One thing I talk about in my classes is how modernity stretches space. Many many years ago, the space we shared with people always meant the sharing of physical space. Over the few hundred year span of modernity, more and more of our social world dealt with those at a distance from us, either across the town or across the world. Moreover, many of these people with whom we connected we did not even know, in the face-to-face conventional sense.

As Christian leaders, we spend the bulk of our time thinking about serving those with whom we share physical space. However, if physically proximate space is the only sphere in which we think missiologically, we might leave much of our social world untouched and ’secular’. Missional thinking, if it is to recognize that ‘the earth is the Lord’s’ and thereby all realms are candidates for redemption, must increasingly focus on faceless relationships as well as the face-to-face, on American Idol as well as the relationships in the home…

Technorati Tags: American Idol, Chris Sligh, everyday life, Social Space