as per Out of Ur – credit where it’s due.
I wanna say right off the bat that this is in no way an attack on Bell who has done brilliantly as a pastor and church leader. Much respect and props there, and I dig the glasses and the emergent thing. But in a recent interview Bell was asked to define evangelicalism to which his answer betrays some of the vagaries the emergent church has been accused of:
Q. What does it mean to you to be an evangelical?
A. I take issue with the word to a certain degree, so I make a distinction between a capital E and a small e. I was in the Caribbean in 2004, watching the election returns with a group of friends, and when Fox News, in a state of delirious joy, announced that evangelicals had helped sway the election, I realized this word has really been hijacked. I find the word troubling, because it has come in America to mean politically to the right, almost, at times, anti-intellectual. For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context.
Q. OK, how would you describe what it is that you believe?
A. I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.
Read the full interview here.
I dunno. It just seems a very shallow answer for a deep thing and Bell has gotten into trouble for this before… Read more…
Starting a new series titled “1st World Re-Evangelization” where I’d like to muse on some thoughts about ministering in a 1st world context as a 3rd world immigrant (what some might call “third culture”). Especially what it’s like as a minority (Korean-American) ministering in a predominantly Caucasian context. I find it intriguing – and different in many ways. Hence, the title, 1st World Re-Evangelization. Also because it is the title of a class I’m taking now, “Empowering the Church for First World Re-Evangelization: Theological And Missional Themes” – so don’t deconstruct the title too much, I didn’t come up with it. It is however a chance to hash out both in-class and out, in theory as well as in praxis, what this idea of “re-evangelizing the first world” really means – as a Christian in a postmodern world and as a minority in a dominant culture context. Either way, a minority. So I turn my first thoughts towards the theme of chaplaincy. Specifically police chaplaincy, and our own local support officer program here in Bellingham / Whatcom County. Read more…
Soong-Chan Rah: Another Angry Asian Man?
Reading “Prof Rah’s” The Next Evangelicalism is like gargling with salt. It stings in the throat but at the same time clears the sinuses of the stuffiness and congestion of poorly thought-out racial dialogue. Sure, we like to talk about color-blindness, and melting pots, and model minorities, but do we know what we’re really saying when we talk about these things? Surely the Church – that glorious multicultural reality – is exempt from these faux-pas assumptions… Or is she? Perhaps a little deconstruction is in order – and maybe that aint such a bad thing.
Read more…
I found this article terribly compelling (thanks to Daniel Eng for the heads up) – especially the following snippet – this has everything to do with defining * success * in church, or entrepreneurship, or just plain life: Read more…
Tech writer Clive Thompson calls Twitter "ambient awareness"
I’m re-publishing this as a convo about Twitter is jump-started by Time mag’s recent cover story on the 140 character cultural phenom. A friend dialogues about it (Twitter) here too. But specifically I am interested in Twitter’s implications for how we do church. I don’t mean so much using Twitter IN church, but the implications for end-user innovation in how we do church. Or be church. What if the church became “open-sourced” and congregant or laity-driven innovation? Original post here: Read more…
We had a discussion among our staff about the art of Makoto Fujimura this morning. He’s a New Yorker. He’s a Greenwich Village artist (my old haunting grounds back in the day @ Parsons School of Design). He’s asian (yay!) And he’s a Christian. So it intrigued me to watch an emerging figure who represents two worlds I inhabit, as an Asian-American as well as a Christian within the arts. So I did some homework only to find this little endorsement here to the left that he receives from CT mag, and to find out that he’s received some accolade from some great sources. See his blog here and professional page here. So I’m thrilled for this guy who is making a statement in numerous ways – as an urbanite, a religious person, an ethnic person – just thrilled. But the one question that seemed to echo in our group was: Read more…
I’ve been making my way through Korean-American author Soong-Chan Rah’s recent new work The Next Evangelicalism. Now careful here, reading it is like gargling with salt – it stings on the way down but clears the sinuses of quaint tokenisms and so-called “color-blindnesses” that perpetuate faulty systems. Basic premise: while the de facto representation of American evangelicalism is predominantly a Caucasian playing field, the fact of the matter is, “American evangelicalism” is fast becoming non-white. I think this is no mystery, and just today heard this sentiment expressed, by a Caucasian brother for that matter. What’s the big stink then? Why the ranting against the establishment, when folks recognize the nation over this phenomenon of “the browning of America”? Read more…
Call me old-fashioned but I am just not sold on the idea of internet church.
Now, it’s not my intention to rant and get polemical on folks, but I am just wondering if this is any way to do church. I’m mildly irked by invitations to attend Easter services online or on TV and it causes me to reflect on the nature of communion – can it indeed happen in such a venue? Yes, Word is communicated, but sacrament? Is not worship about coming out of place into another Place? Conversely, I’m not anti-social media / tech as the recent article in Regent World suggests: Babel and Pentecost, but I do agree with one thing – over reliance on social media and technology as a means to market yourself is a way to sell your soul. Don’t get me wrong; there is a place for it, and to shy away from technology is like saying the Gutenberg press should’ve never happened. (Dare we ignore the fact that it was technology that launched Luther’s Theses all over Europe?) I think the internet is having a similar impact. But still. Somebody tell me why I get itchy and scratchy all over when I get twitter invitations to attend online church?
I’ve been thinking about the chase to acquire “followers” via twitter and I’ve come to the conclusion that to pursue this end, for those in religious ministry, is a sort of spiritual death of a kind. It’s one thing to get a follow and to follow back; it’s another thing to spend endless hours on a computer trying to build up a mass following by following hundreds of people you don’t know. My “following / followers” ratio is quite modest and I am aware of this; but to try to jack this up somehow I think is almost an ungodly attempt to get noticed. Marketing has its place. But there’s something dying when a pastor tries to “self-market” him / herself like this. Agree / disagree?
The market is flooded w/ religious bloggers, of which I am complicit.
So just had a great convo w/ Ron Pai and the RCC staff about technology in the church and how it’s revolutionizing Christendom, much like the Gutenberg press had done centuries before. I mean, think about it; other than business folks and scholars, who uses technology more than the Church? Blogging, twitter, skype, you name it, religious technophiles comprise an important and large segment of the technosphere. Enter the idea of “statewhores” or in more accurate parlance, “stathoe’s” (did I spell that right?) who are basically in it just to get noticed, trying to rack up stats on their websites. But isn’t that what the game’s about? Getting noticed? Read more…
Like
Recent Comments