Digital Nazarene

A Nazarene Wrestling with Digitally Expressing the Great Commission

  • A Little Bit of Happiness

    A Little Bit of Happiness

    I was in a class last week about Holiness (John Wesley, American Holiness Movement, Church of Nazarene) taught Dr. Diane Leclerc, and we were reminded (for me, it might be even taught) that a “holiness” people seeking holiness (not in a self-righteous, judgmental, legalistic way FWIW) find happiness through the desire for and pursuit of holiness. It was an awesome class, and I took a way a lot from it. As is my norm, I’m still processing it.

    Then, this morning, I read this in the intro to Gary Thomas’ intro to his post Getting at the Core Message Behind Sacred Marriage’s, “What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy?” (I’m a free subscriber, so I only get the intro).

    I don’t mean that happiness and holiness are competitors. On the contrary, I agree with John Wesley that only those who pursue holiness will find true happiness.

    Gary Thomas, Getting at the Core Message Behind Sacred Marriage’s, “What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy?”

    Also, this morning (and what ended up driving this), I found this picture of a Bansky installation:

    Artwork by Banksy that reads, "Be with (with is crossed out) someone that makes you (you is underlined to emphasize) happy." Found at: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=970830994687242

    There is some deep truth in Bansky’s art piece, and it is one of the issues that I continue to deal with (I even touched on it during my sermon this past Sunday). However, this also smacks of the “self-improvement” and “self-satisfaction” pursuit that seems to be anything but fulfilling and resulting in fulfilled people.

    In my own self-improvement inner work, I have come to realize that happiness and fulfillment are not necessarily the same.

    I have seen it proposed in non-religious contexts and by non-religious academics, that the current relentless pursuit of happiness is actually driving unhappiness. That doesn’t make sense at first.

    Think about it, though. As one pursues happiness, there is this weird inverse desire for greater happiness. Is happiness pursued ever really found?

  • Your Translation Is Wrong!

    This was originally a Facebook post. I figured I might as well put it here, too.

    VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!!
    NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay sex.
    •The NIV and ESV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few…
    •The NIV and ESV has also now removed 45 complete verses. Most Of us have the Bible on our devices and phones especially OLIVE TREE BIBLE STUDY APP.
    •Try and find these scriptures in NIV and ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37…you will not believe your eyes.
    •Refuse to be blinded by Satan, and do not act like you just don’t care, Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (King James Version). There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it; NIV, ESV and many more versions are affected,
    .THE SOLUTION: If you must use the NIV and ESV, BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated.
    All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc.
    Please spread the word…

    Someone on Facebook who I won’t link to, but others abound with similar accusations.

    With the risk of offending some Facebook friends, I have to finally deal with this one. It keeps coming up in various places, and here, at least, I want to answer it.

    This is a purported “proof” that the NIV is corrupt. Let’s set aside the accusations toward Zondervan (the publisher), as it is Biblica (not Zondervan) that controls the NIV.

    First, let’s recognize that the KJV that most people read is not the original KJV published in 1611. If it does not say, “feede”, “poore”, “bestowe”, for example, it’s not the 1611 “Authorized Version”. There are the 1760, 1769, 1873, 2005 (supposedly returning to the “true” 1611 with modern spelling) versions. If I understand correctly, the 1873 version is the one most people are referring to when they say KJV.

    The KJV New Testament was translated using the 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑠, which was a compilation of texts gathered by Erasmus starting in 1516. This was the text that King James commanded be the only one used for the KJV, even though other manuscripts were out there. Erasmus (then King James) were the gatekeepers of the selection of manuscripts.

    Other translations, not just the NIV or ESV (which is probably the most KJV adherent modern translation out there), use more than 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑠 to compile, compare, select, and then (ultimately) translate. It is this process that provides confidence in the base aspect of the translation. That the 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑠 had a single person decided which manuscript (including the likelihood that he could not get access to some in other countries) is actually one of the huge red flags when it comes to modern translations.
    In the case of Luke 9:56 (chosen because they made a nice graphic about it), here is a short list of translations that match the NIV: the LEB (possibly the most scholarly conservative version), the REB, the CJB, the ASV (ties with LEB), NRSV, NRSVue, the Darby Version (from 1890!), the CSB, the CEV, the Douay-Rheims (from 1790!), ERV (1895).

    The accuracy of the NIV or ESV isn’t really the issue. What we have is, for many, like rock music was in the 80s for certain Christians (I remember seeing album and book burning in the news). This isn’t about wrong translations. It isn’t about the NIV, per se.

    I’m not sure what this person’s intent was (or those like them). I choose to think that they are trying to honor the Scriptures in this way. However, I believe this dishonors the Scriptures.

    As a pastor, I get to wrestle deeply with the Scriptures, understanding that we Christians have many manuscripts that were transcribed with mostly minor differences. While these differences are big when taken by themselves, in the entire context of the Scriptures, they are small. I’m glad when scholars find an obscure manuscript, because it almost always affirms the New Testament that we have. It’s not something of which to be frightened, or to scare other people about.

    My last thought, though, somewhat aligns with their conclusion. If you are a Christian, you should have at least one hard copy of the Bible. Not because the powers that be will change your Bible on the phone (though they can), but because it is a gift of God that is there (when in hard copy). When the power is out, your internet tanks, or should you (gasp) dare to disconnect from the monstrosity that the internet often is, a hard copy is there.

    John 10:10 (KJV 1611) reads, “The theefe commeth not, but for to steale and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might haue life, and that they might haue it more abundantly.”

    The fear that people such as this perpetuate steals and destroys. Fear is not from God.

    And, finally, for all my non-Christian friends, yes, we Christians don’t agree on all things (think of your own family and friends). We do believe, however, that Jesus is the Promised One, the Messiah. It is through him, and him alone, that we will spend eternity with him, as we (try) to change the world into looking more like Heaven on Earth (though we are, admittedly, not doing well in that area).

  • Father A.I.

    I’m an advocate of tech (shocking, I know). Yet, I’m wary of how AI has been used. The latest use I’ve run across (even with my better than minimal understanding of the Roman Catholic church) is the former Father Justin (now, “just” Justin).

    In her article, The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle, Delaney Coyne makes some compelling arguments against Father A.I. (and pastor A.I.), while also making unintended arguments validating VR clergy.

    While Justin can provide some basic catechesis, he lacks the human qualities—including faith and reason—necessary for real theological insight.

    The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle

    I have to agree that, philosophically, an A.I. cannot take the place of a human. I do also wonder if those seeking their A.I. priest are really looking to appease their desire/need for the divine (or transcendence) without the work of human relationship. A.I.’s have taught us about LLMs (Large Language Models) upon which many are based. LLM’s, just like the Google algorithm, don’t teach or reason (or have faith), but they have the veneer.

    The veneer is the real danger of A.I. clergy. If it’s human enough, especially digitally, we are tempted to accept it. We are all clamoring for authenticity, while at the same time elevating A.I. and algorithms.

    Also, whether Roman Catholic or Church of the Nazarene (or whatever Christian tradition), using an A.I. not built using one’s own traditions would seem to invite theological questions, and even create a situation where a catechized person could be mislead into theological error for their tradition.

    “We are confident that our users will not mistake the A.I. for a human being,” Mr. Costello said.

    The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle

    While I may have some technological positive thinking, I am kind of appalled with this Pollyanna-type thinking. In fact, in VR it would seem to lend itself even more to that situation.

    But Ms. Conrad said it is not so simple: “​​Humans tend to project human qualities onto computer systems when they mirror our behavior in any way…. Even when we know better, we tend to interact with anthropomorphic systems differently than with those that don’t have that kind of interface.” Furthermore, Ms. Conrad said that humans are also likely to grant undue credibility to A.I. thanks to “automation bias, where we are more likely to believe the outputs and decisions of automated systems.” Even if we say we know the limitations of these technologies, we are biased to believe that they are more thoughtful and trustworthy than they really are.

    The real lesson behind the ‘Father Justin’ AI priest debacle

    A recent report support Ms. Conrad. Mashable recently noted that Sprout Social’s 2024 Influencer Marketing Report shows Gen Z mostly doesn’t care if influencers are actual humans.

    Yes, there is something definitely different between an A.I. catechizer and an influencer…as long as one understands that there actually is a difference. Some influencers speak with as much air of authority and certainty as an AI would, and probably more than many (if not most) priests.

    While A.I. has great potential, the reality is that for many, it will be a shortcut in the way Google became, with no requirement for thinking.

  • ZCal for Deputation

    Our District Deputation Manager asked me to setup a way for churches to better directly schedule a missionary speaker. Being the nerd and cheapskate that I am, I decided to use ZCal.co for this project.

    Having already made enough mistakes myself getting this setup, I decided to make some quick and dirty videos covering setup. If you want to do something like this, you will need to have either a Google or Microsoft Account that has email and a calendar (though ZCal does allow you to additional calendars of either type).

    A strong recommendation is that this be setup with an account that can be handed off to another person who might handle deputations (as when one steps down from the NMI Board). In other words, don’t use a personal account of yours, instead setup an account that will handle the deputations. This does mean it needs to be checked, however. So make sure that you access it regularly.

    With that, here we go!

    This video shows how to setup a calendar for a particular missionary. This is a long video (~18min), but is pretty much a step-by-step, including pitfalls (I make them in the video).

    This video shows how modifying invites works. This is an important tool for the deputation manager, as rescheduling might be necessary due to transportation issues (our district is, by car, 8 hours tall x 4 hours wide, for example) or missionary changes.

    This video shows how the user/church/NMI person would get an appointment to have a missionary at their church.

  • Rule of Life

    I’ve long been interested in the monastic life. Not sure I could handle it, honestly, but then again, God’s not calling me to it, either. That is normally a prerequisite. However, there are certain aspects of it that entice many of us, because we understand that there is indeed something very different about such a kind of life.

    A very brief history

    The Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions have long upheld the importance of monastic orders. The Protestant traditions, on the other hand, killed off the monastic traditions. This even includes the Lutherans, whose founder, Martin Luther, was a monk.

    Today

    Modern and Post-Modern Protestants continue, however, to show a fascination with it (again, myself included).

    This is why Thomas Merton, Brother Lawrence, and others have books that are shared and read among Protestants, and sometimes even shared from the pulpit. Contemporarily, John Mark Comer, for example, has written popular books—The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry and Practicing the Way—that are very monastic in tenor. From the non-Christian monastic tradition, we have Jay Shetty’s Think Like a Monk. There are plenty of others.

    Where it appears

    In my smaller circles, in both the Church of the Nazarene and digital church expressions, there is a strong interest in the monastic life and way.

    The big draw, so to speak, seems to be the Rule of Life. However, the Rule of Life most seem to be referring to is their own Rule of Life, which is actually not very monastic.

    The founder of a monastic order writes the rules. The postulant, novice, and professed follow the rules. Yet, the dominant view is that we make our own rules. This submission (despite its baggage) to the rules is part of what makes a Rule of Life and the Order that defines it what they are.

    The Nazarene Rule of Life

    As I have looked at others’ Rule of Life, I came to the realization that The Church of the Nazarene has its own Rule of Life. It is called the Covenant of Christian Conduct.

    Now, I admit that the “Christian Conduct” in the title is often a struggle (including for me). Its implication (which I have had to confront) is that those who do not adhere to it are not Christian. This, of course, is false.

    When one reads the Covenant of Christian Conduct, one realizes that it is a Rule of Life. Historically, we’ve tied it to membership within the local congregation of the Church of the Nazarene.

    Becoming a Rule of My Life

    As a relatively new person in the Church of the Nazarene, I was not around when the Covenant of Christian Conduct was used as a goad (sometimes abusively it seems), which caused many to rebel against it. This is why Rule of Life may often not apply to a congregation (or even a denomination).

    The reality is, though, that we often choose to submit to rules that we do not like so that we can get along with others. In particular, we do so to get along in a particular community where we have found a semblance of home.

    When I came to the Church of the Nazarene, the remaining dominant rules were against smoking and drinking. Smoking wasn’t the biggest issue, as I had my dallying it with it long ago. Drinking was an issue, but it didn’t take me very long to determine that I would submit to this rule. Yes, submission was still a choice.

    The Hardness of a Church Rule of life

    While I have long come to grips with the Covenant of Christian Conduct (though, still not the title), I know many within the wider body of the Church of the Nazarene, and even among the clergy still struggle with it. Much of it has to do with how the Church of the Nazarene has tied it to membership. People want to belong to the community but not necessarily adhere to the Covenant of Christian Conduct.

    We, as a denomination, seem to have come to a point where we hold that it is our ordained and licensed clergy that must uphold the Covenant of Christian Conduct, while lay members do not. I’m okay with that.

    The truth is that every church, organization, and even culture (religious or not) has a rule of life. Culture’s rule of life is a lot more nebulous, and in the US it has a tendency to change very rapidly, defying the stability of a deep rule of life.

    I don’t know how to define it, but we generally view Rules of Life as if we must agree with all of it to submit to it. We actually lose a lot of its value when we make it about us as the individual, rather than us as the group.

    I know that people will continue to adamantly oppose the Covenant of Christian Conduct’s stance on alcohol, smoking (tobacco or marijuana), sexuality, and a myriad of other things.

    Rule Versus Covenant

    In an era of Home Owner Associations, covenant has lost much of its spiritual weight. The religious aspect has an understanding that God is in the agreement between parties, thus making it a 3-way agreement of life lived. Covenant remains valid withing a Christian church due to the religious covenantal understanding, but I’m not certain that even we in the Church of the Nazarene understand it that way any longer, even among our clergy.

    Supposedly, a covenant could not be amended either, but Home Owner Associations and the Church of the Nazarene amend their covenants. Thus, to be theologically more aligned with the concept of covenant, Rule is a better word for our association.

    They Do Not Like the Rules

    Last, but not least is the issue many pastors have, “people thing our rules are silly (or stupid or something), and won’t join the Church of the Nazarene.” As we watch church attendance decline, with or without our covenant in place; as we watch society’s fabric fray as its rules change at a shift of wind; as we question the future of the church as we know it; perhaps we made it too easy to get on and off the bus.

    I know that people don’t want to be known for what they are against. It is a philosophy I understand and with which I am in alignment. Yet, I do believe there is a big difference in being against alcohol and being for temperance, for example (as alcohol is a big cultural piece here in the Pacific Northwest). I get that people who like their alcohol and their culture).

    Semantics

    I know this is all about semantics, but we should not devalue semantics, as the nuances will create completely different understandings. I also realize that as many Christian churches are becoming generic what makes us different is now almost strictly about the preacher(s) and the music. As the Church of the Nazarene tries to also become more generic (to be more open and attractive), the Covenant of Christian Conduct may end up being tossed into the trash bin of history, or it may become something that makes us different…as long as we’re okay with being different.

  • One Place Is Me

    Since I am coming to that holy room,
             Where, with thy choir of saints for evermore,
    I shall be made thy music; as I come
             I tune the instrument here at the door,
             And what I must do then, think here before.

    Whilst my physicians by their love are grown
             Cosmographers, and I their map, who lie
    Flat on this bed, that by them may be shown
             That this is my south-west discovery,
             Per fretum febris, by these straits to die,

    I joy, that in these straits I see my west;
             For, though their currents yield return to none,
    What shall my west hurt me? As west and east
             In all flat maps (and I am one) are one,
             So death doth touch the resurrection.

    Is the Pacific Sea my home? Or are
             The eastern riches? Is Jerusalem?
    Anyan, and Magellan, and Gibraltar,
             All straits, and none but straits, are ways to them,
             Whether where Japhet dwelt, or Cham, or Shem.

    We think that Paradise and Calvary,
             Christ’s cross, and Adam’s tree, stood in one place;
    Look, Lord, and find both Adams met in me;
             As the first Adam’s sweat surrounds my face,
             May the last Adam’s blood my soul embrace.

    So, in his purple wrapp’d, receive me, Lord;
             By these his thorns, give me his other crown;
    And as to others’ souls I preach’d thy word,
             Be this my text, my sermon to mine own:
    “Therefore that he may raise, the Lord throws down.”

    “Hymn to God, My God, In my Sickness” by John Donne

    I ran across this poem through Biola University’s The Lent Project for April 3rd. What struck me was, “Paradise and Calvary, Christ’s cross, and Adam’s tree, stood in one place; Look, Lord, and find both Adams met in me…”

    Not sure why this stuck out, but the truth of that does seem to have some echoes in Paul’s words:

    I do not even acknowledge my own actions as mine, for what I do is not what I want to do, but what I detest. But if what I do is against my will, then clearly I agree with the law and hold it to be admirable. This means that it is no longer I who perform the action, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me—my unspiritual self, I mean—for though the will to do good is there, the ability to effect it is not. The good which I want to do, I fail to do; but what I do is the wrong which is against my will; and if what I do is against my will, clearly it is no longer I who am the agent, but sin that has its dwelling in me.

    Romans 7:15-20 REB1

    Donne is not the same as Paul, however. I sense a different (still similar) tension. The recognition/realization that we are not fully one (Calvary/Adam versus Paradise/Jesus) clicks for me.

    The imagery of a tree will helps to root this as an internal tension that we all struggle with. Both aspects (or four if you want to divide them further), remain true in us until we are in Heaven with Jesus.

    1. Scripture quotations taken from the Revised English Bible, copyright © Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press 1989. All rights reserved.  ↩︎

  • Blinded By What We Know

    Church buildings are still the headquarters of discipleship. More than half of U.S. Christians being discipled say church is the primary place where discipleship happens, emphasizing a need for church spaces that promote such engagement.

    Christians overwhelmingly favor in-person over online interactions. While not completely opposed to a hybrid approach to church, Christians also feel activities like children’s ministry, meeting people’s physical needs, welcoming visitors, providing emotional support and ministry to the elderly are most meaningful in person.

    Making Space for Community, Barna

    There is a problem here, and I’m not sure how to make it make sense. Barna is the expert (more than me) in polls and such, but I see a problem in the above.

    First, there is an implication of bias, as it seems the primary sponsor is the Aspen Group, whose business is to reimplement church spaces. For the record, I’ve talked with them, and do respect what they do, and wish that the church I was then at would have been more interested.

    What bothers me is the “more than half” part, and even the “overwhelmingly favor” parts in the quote. Not that I think the statistics are wrong. However, there is an underlying issue…when physical space is all we’ve known…of course we’ll prioritize. That’s what we’re comfortable with.

    I can see people pointing at these conclusions, saying, “See‽ They don’t want digital or AR or VR or XR. They want physical!” Yep, and the majority of their experiences are in the physical. It is self-reinforcing.

    I co-lead (with my wife) a physical church. Our online is not good. Yes, we stream to Facebook (only). Our sound isn’t great. Our video isn’t great. You’ve got me singing, so I know the sound isn’t great. We’re doing our best.

    If I had that one more person? Yes, I could probably improve everything (even without a church bank breaking investment). That’s not our reality, at the moment.

    So, our focus is physical. All of my people prefer in person. All of them. As such, I cannot and do not diminish in person.

    I question the generalizations made by Barna and others about preferences. Again, if something is all you’re used to, then that is what you will prefer.

    I remember we invited friends to dinner. We went all out. We made special food. Spent a little extra money. The response? Next time, we’ll bring plain (emphasis on plain) potatoes and meat. Why? Because that was what they were used to.

    There is nothing wrong with meat and potatoes. That wasn’t the issue. Everything was evaluated against comfort and used to. You know the old adage, “That’s the Way We’ve Always Done It!”

  • Virtual Downs and Ups

    Virtual Downs and Ups

    Shockingly (not really), virtual attendance is down across the church landscape. The biggest change? No COVID restrictions or recommendations. The numbers are still quite startling. Gallup puts the percentage at around 5%.

    However, I suspect a weird twist in the digital realm, where many say they are not attending church, because they (like so many others) are stuck on the building (which is successfully bad discipleship for the traditional church). The other major subset doesn’t consider what it does church, but someone like John Wesley with his classes would likely disagree (and I’m talking about collective arrangement, and not saying that John Wesley would endorse virtual ministry, though I think he would).

    The traditionalist camp might look at the 5% and say, “See? We don’t need to do this anymore.” It’s the easy button.

    Play Next

    The truth is that there is nothing to be gained by arguing about it. I’ve given up arguing about it. Perhaps it was too much Snow Crash, Gibson, ShadowRun, Ready Player One, and so much else. I know that the tech will change everything, and I want the church to get ahead, rather than fall behind. The next domino is about to fall.

    Play Apple

    We are getting really close to Apple releasing its first VR headset. It looks really nice. It is really expensive. Even the expensive (at the time) HTC Vive Eye Pro was cheaper.

    The specs look great. It’s a big change, but we’ll see if Meta’s Quest 3 and HTC’s next sets will be significantly different when it comes to actually being in VR.

    The concern for someone like me who (sadly) remembers AOL and its walled garden, is Apple’s tendency to lock-in its consumers. I’m curious to see how it actually plays out.

    Pay to Play

    The church, theoretically long an advocate for the poor and needy, will find itself in an odd place. The new demographic reality (according to Gallup) is that the gap in church attendence is widening between the high school educated and the advance degree educated, and it’s not what you think.

    The more highly educated (and, thus, generally better off) are those that are more likely to be religious service attenders. The thoughts of many intelligentsia over the years that more education means less religion is not accurate, it seems.

    This implies that the more educated and wealthier will have more disposable income. They are the ones who will also be buying the Apple VR headsets in a greater proportion (most likely).

    It’s the weird and awkward tension of church life. As much as we want to think that the church isn’t nickels and noses, without both, the church cannot fulfill its mission to bring the Gospel to the (meta)world.

    Drive to VR

    As many of its people begin to adapt to VR as they adopt VR (the whole Apple is the best thing ever culture will drive that), what will the church do? Will it try to relegate VR to the evildom of D&D, Magic the Gathering, video games? Will it abandon its people, again, to the world so that the world disciples them better than the church? Will it say, “don’t do that, that’s not real,” and then discover that perhaps leaving it alone was bad (e.g., movies, dancing, secular mu?

    Will VR dominate the church? Probably not for a few years. However, the church is already far behind wondering, processing, and accepting what VR will be bringing us.

    Digital church (live streaming, Discord, Facebook conversations, web calls) is inadequate in many ways, in comparison to in person. That actually isn’t the church’s choice. People are there. The church should be there.

    It is the rapid change of technology that the church ought to prepare for. Whether it is full immersive VR, tactile suits or rooms, or brain implants, the people will be there. So should the church.

  • Are THEY Worthy?

    As we discuss church, discipleship, gatherings, small groups, etcetera, and—in particular—the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of digital gatherings in comparison to physical ones…perhaps we ought to ask…are THEY worthy?

    It’s a provocative question. Who is the “they”? Are they gamers, unchurched, unbelievers, wounded, hurt, ashamed, insulted, assaulted? Are they “worthy”?

    Are they worthy of “our” time?

    Are they worthy of “our” resources?

    Are they worthy of us setting aside our preferences (and, for the sake of argument, the “better” physical gathering)?

    The “our” time and resources, from a Christian point of view, are not ours. Supposedly, We are to view them as God’s. In particular, we are to view them as Christ’s. We are to view them as belonging to our Savior.

    So, let’s rephrase these questions with that ownership in mind.

    Turning the Questions

    Are they worthy of Jesus’ time?

    Are they worthy of Jesus’ resources?

    Now, when we talk about sending missionaries to foreign countries—especially from “the US is the best country” and a “Christian” country perspective—we say, “absolutely” (not saying that this perspective is correct, especially the US part). Setting aside the messianic complex that seems to often go along with that, it’s good to send missionaries. We have no problem spending hundreds of thousands (and even millions or billions) of dollars to reach “those” people in other countries.

    Yet, US church language, by and large, seems to have a completely different perspective when it comes to those that reside in the US. Church language says, they need to come inside our walls.

    More Than Evangelism

    This is not to say all are saying such. Some are utilizing evangelism and missionary language to separate digital from physical. That, at least, is some freedom to reach out digitally and to have community digitally. Yet, even this freedom still implies lesser than status.

    They will be “real” Christians by their lives, whether physical or digital.

    Physical gatherings are not a moral decision, they are a modal decision. They are a preference.

    Truly, though, diminishing digital to be acceptable only in regard to evangelism is to deny both the power of digital and the reality of digital.

    When we morally elevate those who physically show up at a church service or event, we diminish the value of those who don’t. That’s a slippery slope.

    Bytes are Hard

    My limited perspective is that because digital is so foreign to the church, in particular, and also all the leaders of the church who grew up without digital, it’s hard to go digital. That I completely understand.

    Church communities are still sending out missionaries, for short-, medium-, and long-term missions. They’ll send them to foreign countries. They’ll send them to places that are outright dangerous to be a Christian. They won’t send them to Facebook, YouTube, Discord, VRChat, and so forth.

    Why? I wonder. My gut says, because they supposedly will never darken the door of a particular physical church. So, why bother? Then again, who is doing the sending, the church or Jesus?

  • Good vs Better or Best

    Good vs Better or Best

    One of the recent things that has popped up in my thoughts is good, better, best. As my major context is church life, you can be sure that, of course, that’s what’s going on with me.

    “Don’t present online if you’re not high quality” (read that as commercial broadcast worthy). Except new attenders are watching our “poor” quality online first…and they still come.

    That really, though, isn’t the issue for many.

    The Church of the Nazarene has recently completed its General Assembly, an international gathering of denominational representatives. As with any such gathering, there are proposals to change our theology, our ecclesiology, our operationality (i.e., the way we do “business” in concert with the secular world).

    This is the first gathering post-COVID lockdowns. One of the conversations, of course, was how the church ought to double-down on physical gatherings. In fact, one of the proposals (though it seems it failed) would be to change our language to purposefully sideline any digital gatherings as unworthy of being “church”.

    I’m not done with that particular discussion, but that isn’t the point of this short post. The focus is on the Good.

    The Good

    The Good? It’s Jesus. Not church, not my denomination, definitely not me. It’s Jesus. Do I worry about bad theology and practice leading away from Jesus? Yes. I’m not confident enough in myself to not look at me first, so I constantly worry that I’m misleading folks (and I’m called to a higher standard, which never helps).

    No matter what the mode or modal or discussion or theology, if the focus is not on helping, guiding, walking toward Jesus as Lord and Savior, then it’s probably not good. By good, I do mean more on the absolute Goodness of God type of good.

    Better and Best

    The issue for me recently, is just that better and best are a personal evaluation, generally. They aren’t all that empirical. When you watch one of those chef shows (if you do), ultimately, the chef (or chef panel) decides who is better or best. Is it based on experience? Yes. Is based on empirical evidence? Sometimes. Even when it is, though, personal ideation of better and best win out.

    Is it best that people have a weekly physical gathering? For many, it’s an emphatic, yes! For many others, it’s no (sometimes emphatic, too).

    So, which is better, IPL (in physical life) or DLE (digital life expression)? Is that really the best question? Should the question be, what is the best way to get people to know, love, and develop a relationship with Jesus? The best way is the way that works to achieve that goal.

    For many people it is better and best IPL. The problem then may become forgetting what is Good.