27
03
This first video is my presentation on the first night of the Theology after Google conference.
This is Barry Taylor's (whose blog is here) on the last day, and for me, it felt like what he added was in a beautiful resonance with my thoughts.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly why, but after Barry finished I commented that I felt like I had met a theological brother.
20
03
First, I'm sorry for such poor (and poorly aimed) video quality. If it helps, just ignore the visual and listen like a podcast. That will fix the problem and you won't have to be exposed to my ridiculously expressive eyebrows.
Next:
I have a more formal, written reflection about the event, here, on a spot that the Emergent Village folk asked me to do.
Bob Cornwall's TAG thoughts are here on his blog, Ponderings on a Faith Journey.
Ken Silva's thoughts on my presentation are here, on his blog Apprising Ministires.
Jonathan Brink's post referenced is here.
Joshua Case's (of the Nick and Josh Podcast) reflections, though not identical to his closing remarks, are here.
And Brian Shope wrote about Missio Dei after TAG in a way that was clarifying for me here, at his blog, Pacing the Cage.
And yes, I am aware that all these links go to work by men. And yes, that makes me sad.
07
03
Via their website:
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.
The Theology After Google conference is coming up this week, and I thought that folks might be interested in some of my contributions there. (They're bringing me in as one of those theobloggers) Particularly: Members of the Religious Society of Friends, folks interested in theopoetics, and hermeneutics nerds. The full schedule is here, and is all set to Pacific Standard Time.
The main setup is like TED talks, and will all be live streaming here: tinyurl.com/tag10stream .
Please interact, and as I said in the vid, shoot me any comments that you think are relevant. Fun times.
11
02
I recently received the following email and figured that since I was going to reply anyway, I might as well post about it and see if others have opinions they want to share. Please give the questions below a read and weigh in if you have any thoughts about them. I’d be interested for sure, and I imagine that Christopher (who is doing his PhD on matters related to this) would be too.
I recently read the book ‘Thy Kingdom Connected‘ by Dwight Friesen out of Mars Hill and wanted to get more insight on a theory developed in chapter 4 of the book ‘Connective Leaders’. On page 85 Friesen writes that in addition to allowing new and often fringe voices to the conversation (which very much follows Bruce Bimber’s theory of accelerated pluralism), the Internet also connects these groups beyond themselves, thus mediating their extreme, thereby keeping them from developing ‘totalitarian, heretical, cultish tone(s)’. This last bit here is quite an important development as it neatly extends Bimber’s theory of ‘accelerated pluralism’, at least as far as it pertains to religious organizations. I am wondering if you believe this to be more or less exclusive to religious groups and/or other bodies with high levels of social capital? Is so, why? If not, why not? Is the presence of face-to-face in-person contact/meet-ups (church going) important? And perhaps most importantly, why do you think this moderation takes place?
NOTES:
Bimber here is a reference to Bimber, Bruce. 1998. ‘The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism, Community and Accelerated Pluralism.’ Polity XXXI (1): 133-160.
For a quick version of this, see below, from the University of Iowa’s e-democracy pages:
The fragmentation of American political discourse into narrow interests preceded the Internet but the medium accelerates the tendency. As citizens turn away from conventional channels of political participation, will they substitute new political forms, or retreat into private spheres of atomized interests? What happens to serendipity and community, cross-cutting issues, and process?
Bimber calls this process “accelerated pluralism”, and it does seem to be a general characteristic of on-line life, political and otherwise. Just as urbanization affords exposure to a wider range of experiences but allows greater social segmentation, electronic media can further fragment civic society by microtargetting people in increasingly individualized affinity groups. In Norris’ words, “virtual democracy looks more like anarchy than ABC news.”
Can cyber-space complete the transformation from village to urban cliques, permitting disembodied interests to aggregate electronically?
Oh, the off-camera commentary was from my housemate Michelle Long, and the swing dance community I mentioned was http://yehoodi.com/ .
I’d love to hear other thoughts on these questions.
