Friday, June 26, 2009

Biennial Day 1 - of images and youth

Day one of the ABC/USA Biennial. I attended a talk by Leonard Sweet and a Young Clergy meal. Leonard Sweet first:

Sweet is big on the popularization of what he is calling postmodernity. A challenge with popularizing something is that it becomes so watered down that it loses its meaning – I think Sweet has fallen into this trap. First he created a word vs. image polarity claiming that those born before 1973 (the year the cell phone was invented) are from a word world (not to be confused with the PBS show – very educational) to an image world. To try to connect, Sweet had what he called a “VJ” flying through Google during his talking, finding images that were connected with his points – that was mostly distracting and at times annoying.

So there is a dichotomy between words and images that Sweet is trying to create. A problem with this polarity is that Sweet never defined “image.” A number of people continued to not that the “image” generation (or the Google generation as Sweet called us) are heavily steeped in text. From texting to IM to Facebook to Twitter to Blogs there are a lot of words being used. So we found confusion.

Sweet did suggest that we should avoid a “versusits” approach to scripture and look to a wholestic view of scripture and everything else we encounter which is good.

Here are the folks I think Sweet should read so he can fine tune his talk and make better points – granted the list is not exhausted.

Clifford Geertz – Geertz takes Ryle’s “thick description” and focuses and deepens it. A think description looks deep into the context, the community, place, setting of an action, person and event. I think this is what Sweet is suggesting with his approach to scripture. Robert Alter would be a very good read as well.

Wittgenstein and Austin – Of course I would list these to, they are heavily on my mind. Yet Wittgenstein and Austin both have a very well articulated approach to language that understands how a speech act or proposition points towards something, shows something which may be meaningful in the community. The image that Sweet is suggesting is a speech act. Thus L8tr is a speech act that now has meaning in the “Google generation” because of the medium of cell phones.

Volf, Fiddes, Hiem, Barth, Hauerwas, and many many others to gain an appreciation for (1) the relationality of the church via the relationality of the trinity; the nature of the community of Christianity vs. the ethos of the world.

I’m supposed to hear Sweet again today and I have set the bar fairly low. He seems like a very sharp individual who is not taking the time he needs to be careful about his message and his points. Thus his points are dull and ineffective.

Ouch.

With all that said a brief word about the Young Clergy dinner. Apparently denominations are experiencing a dearth of young clergy (between 3% and 7% of most mainline clergy are under the age of 35…..I still fall in that category). David Wood, ABC pastor and Lilly Foundation guy made a good and candid presentation about the dire place of the denomination and churches and how much young clergy are needed. Here is the rub – we need to play, imagine and think beyond the institutional boxes if we are to have any hope of vibrancy. There is a tsunami of institutional memory against us. How can we push, guide and lead in a pastoral manner, attuned to the Holy Spirit so that the church can engage in the world in a powerful and authentic way? I know it is not by using a “VJ” (again, ouch).

This is a topic that really should have much more, but I have said enough already and it is only day one.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think Sweet was interacting with a dialectic words and images and not a dichotomy of words and images.

Jonathan Malone said...

I think that is where Sweet was heading, but he failed to articulate this on the first day. The second day he seemed to offer something a little more wholistic, yet still continued with the Gutenberg (words) vs. Google (images) dichotomy. He overstressed the point thus creating the dichotomy.

Remember that a dialectic is a back and forth between words and images - I do not think Sweet was moving in this direction. This would been that Gutenberg influences Google and back to Gutenberg and so on and so forth. Yet Sweet drew the generational line (1973) and created the us vs. them mentality.

I think his reasoning leads towards a dialectic, yet his rhetoric created a dichotomy.

Thanks for the comment!