RyanBolger.com

In his book The Great Good Place, written almost twenty years ago, Ray Oldenburg wrote about the great “third place” in our lives — not home, not work, but a third place where we relax and socialize with others– barbershops, coffee houses, parks, etc. A place to have civil discourse with others in our locale — talking and shooting the breeze both with those who think like us but also with those who do not share our perspective on all things. Oldenburg laments that these third places are diminishing in popularity.

At the same time, some have suggested that maybe we should not call for coffee shops to return but perhaps it is churches who ought to re-create this third space – that besides work and home the person ought to be deeply connected to a faith community. The characteristics of the third place:  a source of renewal, banter, serious discussion, all happening within walking distance from the home, ought to characterize the church — not just the secular third place.

No doubt, we must agree with Oldenburg — our participation has diminished in third places. Where are we spending our time? We are not just bowling alone, as some would say. Many are finding a sense of community online. They are spending their free time catching up with their friends and acquaintances on social networking sites, and increasingly that is Facebook. Has Facebook become this third place? Quite possibly, with some major tweaks. Although it is a place of deep connection and identity formation, it is definitely a different kind of space than the barbership or the physical church building.

As danah boyd (intentionally lowercase) has said, “networked publics” differ from physical communities in at least four ways:  persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences. Persistence – people have access to you 24/7. Searchability — people can find you and what you are up to. Replicability – what you write/say/photograph/video can be copied again and again. Invisible Audiences — you have no sense of who is staring at you – who is reading your wall – is it your friend, boss, or grandma?

Clearly, these four aspects of online social networking offer a different understanding of community than Oldenburg — they limit some aspects and augment others. Could it be that we are seeing not a poorer sense of community, just a different kind of community emerging?

Just as some envisioned the church as Oldenburg’s type of community offline, what about envisioning what the church can be through boyd’s categories? Clearly, to dream of Oldenburg’s community in an online environment is nostalgic and misses the mark. How about dreaming about what God might be doing in these four new aspects of ‘networked publics’: cultures of persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences?

To compare online community to offline community has limited benefit. Online community will always be significantly different than its offline counterparts. But might we see God’s goodness there, might we see practices of forgiveness, service, love of of the other? Of course, redemption is possible in any culture. Better than holding up online community to an arbitrary standard, perhaps we need to spend some time re-imagining what the reign of God might look like in these new virtual cultures.

Facebook just celebrated its 6th birthday last week. At that time, it announced it had 400 million users. It doubled its user base in the last year. In terms of sheer magntitude, this kind of change in social practice is unprecedented in human history. Facebook  is currently is growing at 21 million new users a month.

During the month of February (or what is left of it), I want to explore the impact Facebook has on the future of the church. I will be posting ideas and hosting discussions related to Facebook and its impact on day-to-day church practice. Some of the questions I would like to explore: ought churches to ignore, engage, or celebrate Facebook? Do you think faith communities need to have a presence on Facebook, why or why not?

I will look at examples of churches that engage Facebook, either by having a wonderful page, or… (not). I will also be examining both individual congregations and denominational Facebook pages as well. If you would like me to evaluate your church’s Facebook page, in light of our discussions, I would be happy to analyze it and feature it on this site.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am currently on sabbatical. During the sabbatical, one of my research projects involves looking at faith communities and their interaction with social media. I would like to share some of my findings with you as they arise — to think out loud through this website — hopefully to stimulate  conversation about the church and social media. My hope, through this February discussion, is that our mutual understanding of the church’s mission in a Facebook world grows deeper.

So, in this first post  — what are your initial thoughts about Facebook and churches? Concerns? Passions? What ideas ought we to explore here for the month?

Credit: USA Today

In one of the most anticipated announcements in tech-world memory, Steve Jobs introduced the Apple iPad yesterday. Some have called it a game changer, while others have looked at it as simply a large itouch. Still others have suggested we wait until iPad 2.0, where we will possibly get a camera, multitasking, and annotation with ibooks. Regardless of the perspective, the online world was abuzz with what the iPad might mean for particular spheres of cultural practice. Against my better judgement, I thought I would weigh in on some possibilities the iPad might afford or limit in regard to the church.

What will the impact of the iPad be on church practice? My focus is not so much on how the iPad will impact Christians — I suspect that it will impact individual Christians not so differently from their religious and non-religious  counterparts. My question is how will it impact Christians when “two or three gather in Jesus name”, either online or offline. What will be the impact when Christians congregate?

Christians gather in a myriad of ways, whether that be in worship services in physical locations, in online experiences such as in SecondLife, or in Internet campuses that mix offline and online characteristics, to name a few. Christians also meet to pray, in small groups (as small as two or three) or in large groups; they sometimes gather physically together, sometimes on the phone, and sometimes through tweets or text messages. Christians meet to study God’s word, often in church buildings, homes, or in online discussion groups. Christians meet simply to connect and grow deeper in relationship, and this happens both physically and virtually. Finally, Christians also perform mission and witness together, through serving others in their local community, globally, or in online environments.

Steve Jobs introduced the iPad as a bridge between the smart phone and the laptop — seeking to meet (create?) a need that can’t be met in either iPod touch or the MacBook environments. Given that focus, what church practices cited above might be changed with the introduction of the iPad, practices that couldn’t be addressed with either the iPod touch (mobile device) or the MacBook (heavy-duty computing device)?

I see smart phones continuing to facilitate the connections of many Christians on a daily basis. People will update their Facebook status or provide tweets to their followers; they might ask for prayer or encourage one another through texting. I see Christian teachers and worship leaders using laptops or iPhones to present their messages to either their Bible studies or congregations. In mission, I see Christians using both iPhones and computers to communicate their message and serve those outside their communities. So, if both offline and online communities have the technology they need to gather in Jesus’ name, both online and off, where is there space for the iPad to have an impact on church life?

I believe the greatest impact the iPad (1.0) will have on church practice is in the role the Bible plays in the church community. For many Christians, bringing their Bible to a church service and following along with the preacher is a staple of church practice. A few have replaced this practice with following along on a mobile device with Bible software. However, these mobile devices do not have the screen size to sustain long term reading. It is still much easier to read a physical Bible. On the other end of the spectrum, bringing a laptop to church is a bit distracting to others in the pews! Here is where the iPad may have its greatest impact for Christian gatherings: Christians bring their iPad to church meetings where it serves as their Bible reader.

Not only do I see e-readers like the iPad replacing traditional Bible reading in churches, but in Bible reading for individuals as well. With each new version of Bible software on the iPad (and there are many iPhone app versions ready to go), the tools and the resources will make Bible reading on an e-reader an even greater learning opportunity (using sound, image, video, etc). Down the road, congregants will bring their Bibles, chock-full of resources, notes, and conversations, to the church service or Bible study for further exploration, all on a unit that is one half-inch thick and weighing 1 1/2 pounds. They will also take notes on the sermon with the unit as well. Many see the main significance of the iPad as an e-reader; at this point in its evolution I would agree, and in looking at church practice, it is the public reading of the Bible where the iPad will have its greatest impact.

In the longer term, I would see the iPad’s impact on churches will result in greater participation by congregants in the church services themselves. This greater level of participation is related to the large scale movement in the culture towards the creation and sharing of Web 2.0 media. The iPad is a media-consuming device, a device that can be easily shared with others. Ultimately it will have a democratizing effect on groups — serving to move groups towards more participatory frameworks and knowledge sharing. It is conceivable that the iPad may facilitate the possibility for more varied contributions in Christian gatherings, as individuals share their media-rich gifts with others. However, for many communities this is not yet on the horizon and the more immediate changes will involve the role of the Bible in the church community.

Well, these are some of my first impressions of the impact on church life by the iPad.  There is much more that can be said, of course. For one, I have not explored the socio-economic implications of the congregational use of the iPad, e.g. if we determine as a community that the iPad is a good, how do we guarantee everyone in the congregation access, etc. Also, the fact that in many parts of the world the iPad is a distant dream because of its sheer cost. These questions will be for a later day or someone else to add to the conversation.

What do you think might be some of the biggest changes on church life initiated by the iPad?

***

Add 2/2/2010 — if I see other websites with ideas, I’ll add trackbacks…

http://www.hostmedic.com/admin/uncategorized/ipads-place-in-ministry/

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.

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?

From Harvard Business this month, Vineet Nayar wrote that it is time to invert the management pyramid. In this article he cites how management was developed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, establishing command and control structures within organizations. Over the last century, cultural change drove new ways to innovate in organizations, most frequently through collaboration and teamwork. However, organizations still kept the classic management structures, which worked against innovative processes.

In our churches, similar changes have occurred. We’ve inherited management structures that were introduced to our tradition fifty or more years ago. In our day-to-day lives together as a church community, we assume a command/control structure is the way to get things done. However, the culture has moved on — one person cannot, within their person, have all the tools to direct an organization in an informed and intelligent manner. Likewise, our churches falter when it is the pastor who is assumed to do most of the ministry and leading. It does not need to be this way. Within most church traditions, appeals can be made to move towards a collective priesthood, one where a variety of gifts might lead and inspire the community at different levels. The pastor must shift his/her role towards one that creates space for the people to take center stage.

Nayar asks the hard questions, ones we must pose to the churches: “Do we have the humility to step out of our egos and hand over the mike to our subordinates? Do we possess the courage to unstructure an existing, rigid regime that we have known to work in the past?” Do churches possess the humility and courage Nayar talks about? I think many of our churches do, and now is the time to change.

For more thoughts on this topic, check out this post over at Subversive Influence…

I had the opportunity to meet with a delightful group of Fuller grads from the early 1990s. About fifteen in number, these men and women serve as PCUSA pastors and once each year they get back together. I was invited to come and chat with them about my research interests. We had a great back and forth and the two hours went by really quickly — lots of laughter throughout. I spoke on the nine patterns of emerging churches. We talked about how the emerging practices are flowing into the denominational systems as a renewal movement. We talked a bit about the move of the church into new forms of social media. A rich time…

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…

Today I’ll be liveblogging The Future of Global Theology event at Fuller Theological Seminary. It coincides with the public launch of the Dictionary of Global Theology edited by William A. Dyrness and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, with Simon Chan and Juan Martínez serving as associate editors. It will begin at 11:00am PST and conclude at 2:30pm.

Please join us — feel free to ask questions as the proceedings go along…

UPDATE:

My deepest apologies — the room where the event was held had NO internet — wired or wireless. Wow. I had absolutely no idea of this beforehand. Again, I’m sorry and frankly embarrassed about how this transpired. If I can get a hold of some transcripts — my notes were sketchy because I was looking endlessly for web access – I’ll post them.