Dipped into a shallow pool?

So did your pastor download this week's sermon off the internet? J.M. van der Laan seems to be concerned that he might have. He has recently published an article on how the internet shapes religious life. He asks “what happens to churches and pastors and Christian religious life when those involved rely increasingly, maybe soon predominately, on such Internet sources and resources” (p. 275). The answer he seems to conclude is that this food for religious life becomes processed, diluted and artificial; “certainly, the sermon is sullied, and the word becomes wooden” (p. 275). Ouch.

He is correct in pointing out the dangers of relying completely on sites that offer whole sermons sometimes for a fee. Hey, we all know that you can't live on fast food and the same goes for downloaded sermons. That is why many of these sites also include warnings. I have mused about these same issues on this blog. But I think van der Laan has incorrect conceptions of information and the Internet. Information is not a thing to be picked up. It is constructed as we interact with the world around us. The internet is not a pool we dip into searching for a bit of useful information. The Internet shapes us certainly, but we are not done shaping it and particularly in religious contexts.

I've been writing an article in response to van der Laan. I think interaction between the preacher and the Internet is more complex than van der Laan is portraying. In the next few posts I'll share with you how that article is unfolding. I don't think it is about dipping into a shallow pool, rather it is the beginning of a deeper conversation.

Read More

Scooped?!

I had a scare recently: I thought I was scooped. No, not hit by a shovel but it almost felt like it. I thought someone had already published my research. Let me explain. It might seem sometimes that academics spend a lot of time researching stuff topics that are obvious to the rest of us (e.g. "wearing a helmet while skiing or snowboarding reduces the risk of head injuries" - um, ok.) Or some research just seems plain silly (e.g. "pressures produced when penguins poop"- eww.) Good research however is intended to expand our understanding of the world (and its people). It is intended to be original unless it clarifies or confirms earlier research (how about no repeats on the penguin study, please.) Researchers take great care to determine what about their subject area has been researched and to build upon the previous work. No point reinventing a perfectly good wheel. And good researchers give credit where credit is due.

I took great care to review all the literature in my area and was certain that I had done a more than reasonable job of ferreting out anything relevant. So I was submitting and abstract for an upcoming conference and decided to check out last year's abstracts to use as a model. I noted an abstract submitted by an acquaintance of mine, Don Wicks. It wasn't on my topic but it was of interest. As I read the full paper, I discovered that the coauthor, Daniel Roland, like Don had written in the area of pastors' information seeking behaviour. It was his PhD dissertation in 2007. Uh-uh...how did I miss that one. As I read through the abstract I found that he also approached his topic from the same theoretical perspective as I. My heart skips a beat. Did he already do my research?!!

(OK, you are thinking get a grip Michels...research something else then. But this has been a long three years. Back tracking here would not be good.)

I located a copy of the thesis and found that though there were similarities, it was not what I was doing. I did help me in my reading though so in the end I'm glad to have found it. So back to work. Time to pick up the pace on data collecting and writing or maybe next time I really will get scooped!

Read More

Making Square Sense

Did that make any sense? Back about 20 years ago I attended a lecture about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - don't remember anything about the lecture except for the concept attributed originally to the 18th cent. clergyman John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement. It suggested that theological decision making relied on four sources: Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. The name quadrilateral was a little misleading since the four sources were not seen as equal. Scripture always had preeminence: the Bible was the highest authority. Tradition referred to both the historical teachings of the church, and contemporary theological thinking. Personal religious experience also plays a role as does God given reason. I did note that one blogger is suggesting changing the name to the Tetrahedron of Authority. Umm...ok, that's not helping much (never did like geometry).

I've been reflecting on church decision making lately. You know Wesley's method wasn't far off how contemporary Christian leaders use various sources to make sense out of their religious worlds. Most would still hold to various degrees the Bible as the authority. Some branches of Christianity might put different weight on tradition (ok I couldn't resist the link); evangelicals might be less inclined to turn to creeds and canons of the church but may be more likely to be influenced by contemporary theological trends and writings. As I listen to church folks wrestling with decision-making, personal histories play a significant role. This usually take the form of storytelling "I remember some years back when...." Then there is reason "well to my mind, it only makes sense...." There is also room here for "secular" information to be introduced (stats, marketing, psychology etc.). But I'm beginning to see another category here and I'm not sure where it fits. When I've figured it out I'll suggest my own geometric shape. In the meantime you can practice your geometry here.

Read More

Surprise! It's not the internet's fault!

The dictionary definition of faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. It is also defined as a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion. I like the first definition better because it suggests something more than an intellectual assent. One of the Bible's most notable chapters about faith states "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

But let's go back to the second definition: the belief in the doctrines of the church. Last Thursday I submitted an extended abstract for the Canadian Association for Information Science meetings during the 2010 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences. When I started my research planning over eighteen months ago, I expected to find that new communication technologies were undermining religious authority and confusing doctrine. The average parishioner doesn't need to turn to the "expert" (pastor or priest) any longer for theological information; they now have access to significant resources online. The question is whether they have the skills to effectively evaluate and integrate what they find. I thought this would be disruptive to the local church's ability to equip their members. Recently however, I've begun to question that assumption in part due to some recent work by Heidi Campbell (2007, 2010 Forthcoming) on authority online, and a rethink of some of Reg Bibby's work on the the endurance of religious traditions in Canada (2002, 2004). I've lots more thinking (and analyzing) to do but here is where I'm at now.

Maybe online seeking isn't really undermining the teachings of your church. People are trying to make sense of their world the best way they can, looking for answers for faith questions that to that point their church hasn't provided them. I've seen evidence that people are open a better answer from their church, if one was offered. But in the meantime they need something to help make sense of a life situation and find it online. So I guess the ball is in the local church's court: who is teaching your parishioners? They need answers and they might not wait for you to get around to it. Just saying. ;-)

Read More