Analog and Digital

Many people talk about the differences in being a "digital native" and a "digital immigrant". This difference is more than just how savvy one is with technology but seems to speak to a way of viewing and engaging the world.

In the style of Jeff Foxworthy, you might be a digital immigrant if you are giving directions to a location rather than just giving a physical address - you might be a digital immigrant. Or if you print out emails - you might be a digital immigrant. 

Digital native/immigrant language is not very helpful to me because it seems to categorize people by age. If you are less than 35 years old, you are a digital native. Older than that and you are an immigrant. But being a native or immigrant has little to do with age and more to do with worldview. 

I have met a number of young people who are savvy with technology and yet think very analogically at the same time I have met much older people who do not know snot about technology but think much more digitally. 

To this end, I find it helpful to talk about digital thinking and analog thinking.

This is not an essay on the full definitions of analog and digital thinking, but one point of divergence seems to be rooted in how each thinker deals with change.

There are a great number of people who identify the church needs to change - it is the nature of that change that  is the point of tension. Analog-ers want the church to change by just being better at what we are doing. We need to be better teachers - so we try to use video and twitter while preaching. We need to be better at selling ourselves - so we get involved with every social media we can imagine. We need to be better at managing the money - so we higher consultants to help with a stewardship campaign.

On the other hand, there are the digital thinkers who also identify the church needs to change, but not in the same way. The church does not need to just do what we are doing only better, but we need to do things differently. We need to change the way we preach not just do it better. We do not need to be better signs but build better people. Stewardship campaigns are no longer serving the purpose of helping people be better stewards, rather they are pledge drives with Jesus language. 

Analog thinking leads to a place where we build church buildings because we want the church to be around forever. Digital thinking leads to a place where we build the kingdom because we know the church is not what we are called to build.

These are just some basic thoughts that are not original and others around the world have already pointed out that how we address change is not generational but more worldview specific. It is the job of the digital thinkers to learn how the analog thinkers address change because it is the digital thinkers who are calling into question the sustainability of the current systems.

Quick question - do you think the church needs to be better (more efficient, greater communication, etc.) or do you think the church needs to be different (new language, different focus, etc.)?

Biblical sermons

The conversation with the young woman was very nice as we shared adjacent tables at a local eatery. When I asked her what church community she was a part of, she shared that she was a part of the Catholic Church but is now a part of a "Bible Church".

Jokingly I said, "Really, I thought Catholics were a Bible Church?"

She did not get the joke at all and began to share with me that the priest never preached from the Bible on Sunday.

Not to discount her experience, I have a very difficult time buying into an idea that a Church that uses the Roman Mass and has at least four readings from the Bible is not preaching from the Bible.

Since this was Sunday, she pulled out her worship guide from earlier that morning and I saw the answer to the question I was pondering in my head.

There in the worship guide was a number of biblical citations in the pre-printed "sermon notes" section.

As I listened to her share her worship experience and faith journey, it became clear to me that a sermon or a Church is a "Biblical" if there are specific scripture citations. As long as the preacher teaches then can cite a specific biblical passage, then, from what I could gather, this young woman saw that as a "Biblical sermon."

Having a number of citations from the Bible is "Biblical" in the same way that a research paper is "fact checked" when it has encyclopedia (or in this age, Wikipedia) citations.

Here is the rub for me. This young woman was highly articulate and very clear and intelligent and yet she relied upon overt language to tell her that a sermon (or a church) is "Biblical".

Is this what is has come to? Do we only know if something is Gospel or Biblical if there is a verse citation next to it? Is this why there are posters in which we take a scene from nature and then put a bible verse next to it. Do Christians not know something is Biblical or Gospel or Good News or of God without a citation next to it?

Do we not know all churches are Bible Churches unless the sign out front says so?

All joking aside, I think there is an issue in our Churches if we are not able to hear a teaching and without the use of Biblical citations hear the Biblical witness.  Heck Jesus did not cite any of his scripture yet we call his message Gospel.

Can we hear a sermon/teaching or attend a worship and critically engage in it to the point that we can hear the Biblical witness even if not one citation is made?

Let those who have ears hear.

Organizing the roaches

In the book "The Information Diet" there was a nice metaphor that struck me. The author was talking about while the idea of greater transparency in the world is good, it is not a solution to the problems in the world. Just because we can see where the money is being spent in our governments does not mean that governments will be good stewards of that money. Thus transparency is good but honesty and integrity are much better ideals.

Here is the metaphor he used: 

"If you turn the lights on in a roach-infested apartment, it doesn’t kill the roaches, it just makes them organize in the shadows. Sunlight only hides the infestation. To get rid of them, you should clean up the apartment and probably call an exterminator."

The church talks a lot about being a "city on a hill" a "reflection of the light of God" and whatnot. All good metaphors. But when we are content on being just a reflection of the Light do we really just allow the roaches in the world (aka: sin) just become better organized? 

Is the church intended to be that place where we help shine the light or is the Church that place that is called to help clean up the apartment?