This is the second of three posts (to view the first post, click here) presenting a semiotic analysis of Google Glass and the ubiquity of mobile technology (Mobiquity). Note: these posts have been edited and reformatted from a paper I wrote for my doctoral program at George Fox Seminary with Dr. Leonard Sweet.
Connected but Alone
As many skeptics have pointed out, the protagonist in the Google Glass video is depicted as living alone, meeting a friend for a short meeting at a portable coffee shop and then having a virtual meeting with his female friend over a video connection. Many have noted that the future being presented is lacking of human contact, demonstrating the proliferation of social technology to the place where one is more connected than ever and yet, also, more alone.1
This concept video brings into view the reality that people desire connections; this desire for connection is what has driven the proliferation of the Internet and Social Media technology.2 “The Internet may be a virtual community, but still it’s a community that’s readily available in a disconnected world.”3 As we move forward into a virtual world, there will be increased need for relational connection. Dyrness points out “In a world where we struggle not to “lose touch” with one another, Christ has given us this image of himself to hold on to, and by which we orient ourselves…”4 Technology offers Facebook, effectively and successfully providing connection, but people will increasingly desire Face-to-Face time (relationship).5 As the Google Glass video demonstrates, the protagonist is connected like never before, but the skeptics make a solid argument that he simultaneously seems alone. In our increasingly connected but alone world, the church has an amazing opportunity to provide face-to-face community and relationship in a Facebook world.
Instant, Simultaneous and Constant Access to Information
One of the most intriguing aspects of the Google Glass video is the fact that it demonstrates how technology will increasingly make any and all information available on-demand visually (personal schedule, weather, web search), sometimes without prompting (example of the automated suspended subway services announcement in the video). This evolution is simply another further step in information technology’s mobiquity.
In Steven Levy’s In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives, Google cofounder Larry Page describes the future of search in similar terms: “It [Google] will be included in people’s brains. When you think about something you don’t know much about, you will automatically get the information.”6
Google Glass’s emerging step in mobile technology announces the emergence of the next stage in evolution for mobile devices. This next stage will radically effect how we learn. Just as the calculator continues to change how we learn and teach math, the constant access to seemingly infinite information will change how we learn history, geography, literature, etc.7 The need to memorize dates, times, figures, etc. will increasingly become unnecessarily. Even the skill of writing will continue change as texting and typing become increasingly dominant.8 With this seemingly limitless amount of information, it will become increasingly important to teach critical reflection and discernment skills to skillfully sift though the flood of information being fed on the Google Glass display.9
This effect of technology will radically affect discipleship in the similar way it has education. The traditional way of disciplining and evangelizing Christians (in fact, all religions over the last several hundred years) has been through education defined as the teaching of information. “All religious evangelism is premised on the conviction that you can change people’s beliefs by educating them on the issues.”10 This shift in education is not coincidental to the discipleship crisis many see on the horizon. In relation to the Church, this will have massive effects on the crumbling state of discipleship within North America and will spark a major shift in how we view and facilitate discipleship within the local church.
Interestingly, just as the Church had an instrumental role in the creation of higher education at the height of the Medieval Period, the church has the possibility to seize this opportunity and, once again, be on the cutting edge of education. Many see the state of discipleship as a major crisis; however, in the spirit of the book Abundance, it is also an amazing opportunity that could be fashioned by God for revival and renewal in the church that could, once again, be on the cutting edge of education.11
This is the second of three posts…to read the next post, click here.
2 Leonard Sweet, Real Church in a Social Network World: From Facebook to Face-to-Face Faith (Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press, 2012), Kindle, Location 699.
3 Ibid.
4 William A. Dyrness, Poetic Theology: God and the Poetics of Everyday Life. Kindle, Location 798.
5 Leonard Sweet, Real Church in a Social Network World: From Facebook to Face-to-Face Faith.
6 Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler, Abundance: The Future Is Better than You Think (New York: Free Press, 2012), Kindle, Location 1111.
7 The calculator is another example in how mobile devices have taken this technology to the next stage of its mobiquitous evolution. The smart phone has placed a calculator in the hands of most North Americans (as well as many other continents) available at every given moment. Google Glass technology will take this one step further with real time, artificial intelligence initiated, calculations.
8 Leonard I. Sweet, Viral: How Social Networking Is Poised to Ignite Revival (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2012), 17.
9 This tsunami of information will continue the journey into the recognition of the subjective nature of information and the continued rejection of modern sciences claim to objectivity. This reality is effectively introduced and argued my Michael Polanyi.
Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge; towards a Post-critical Philosophy.(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).
10 Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong (New York: HarperCollins Publishing, 2010), 107.
11 Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kotler, Abundance: The Future Is Better than You Think.
This is the first of three posts presenting a semiotic analysis of Google Glass and the ubiquity of mobile technology (Mobiquity). Note: these posts have been edited and reformatted from a paper I wrote for my doctoral program at George Fox Seminary with Dr. Leonard Sweet.
INTRODUCTION
With the introduction of the cellular telephone in 1973 by Martin Cooper (Motorola) and its subsequent evolution into the exponentially expanding realm of information technology, the way people communicate, relate and understand the world around them has drastically changed. Mobile technology has evolved and proliferated significantly over the last forty years to the point where the technology has reached ubiquity – “Mobiquity.”
This evolution experienced a climatic moment on April 4, 2012 when Google publicly presented its Google Glass concept video resulting in wide spread attention and a viral response. The viral video was simultaneously accepted by some with a hopeful embrace, while rejected by others with a fear of societal collapse. Although the debate about what life would be like with this emerging and democratized technology has been intense, all sides agree it is on the immediate horizon and will continue information technology’s propagation into our lives and relationships.
The following is a semiotic analysis of this cultural catalytic event, making semiotic connections with specific emphasis on the effect it will have on the Christian faith and the Church.
The Introduction of New Technology Expressed Through Narrative
Before looking at the specifics of the Google Glass video, it is fascinating to note that Google has chosen to present its new technology concept in the form of a narrative told though a YouTube video rather than a press release, presenter or through a list of bullet points of specifications. This expresses something about how culture is changing regarding how it conceptualizes and understands new ideas and concepts. Google understands the need to weave the exploration of its new product concept through the narrative of someone’s life from morning to evening. Precisely, it is not just a glimpse of life but it narrates an arching story of a young man’s quest to learn and perform a ukulele song for Jessica (we presume to be his girlfriend). Google brilliantly utilizes narrative, showing how the Google Glass technology assists, aids, effects, and alters the protagonist’s experience throughout his quest (Even the slight detour to make a note about buying tickets to the Monsieur Gayno concert is related to the arching narrative as Gayno is shown as a Ukulele artist).
This phenomenon is, in part, what Ricoeur would call a series of “emplotments.” In other words, “…the tendency to make sense of one’s life as a kind of poetic activity.”1 Encapsulated within narrative circle technique, Google is using the narrative to put together little stories (“emplotments”) to create a larger narrative, drawing the audience in and presenting the technology in a way that is, presumably, assisting the protagonist’s life, connecting these smaller narratives together, helping to form meaning and relational connections.2
As the church moves forward, it will have to re-learn what it means and provide opportunities to allow people to fulfill their God-given need to fit their narrative into God’s redemptive metanarrative, helping people find meaning and purpose. As technology futilely seeks to fulfill humanity’s God-given need to be in a larger story, it promises what it cannot deliver, providing the church with a unique opportunity. The church has the opportunity to help people see that their story is part of a greater story (God’s redemptive story) and tell that story better and more effectively to a story-starved world and culture. People are increasingly using mobile technology to narrate their lives, to place their emplotments alongside others and through that process, find identity, meaning and purpose.3 The challenge for the church moving forward is to pose and empower its people to be story-listeners and storytellers.4
This is the first of three posts…to read the next post, click here.
Footnotes
1 William A. Dyrness, Poetic Theology: God and the Poetics of Everyday Life (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2011), Kindle, Location 1043. 2 There is a form of circle narrative in this video. It begins with a reminder about meeting Jessica at 6:30pm and ends with the encounter, both notified through Google’s technology. Mary Douglas, Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), Kindle. 3 For more on this, see the following post I wrote about my prediction on the future of Facebook’s Timeline. 4 Leonard I. Sweet, Nudge: Awakening Each Other to the God Who’s Already There (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010).
Recently, I had the tremendous opportunity to participate in the Lausanne North America Young Leaders’ Consultation in Madison, Wisconsin. For those not familiar with Lausanne, it is an evangelical movement birthed in Lausanne Switzerland at the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelism in 1974. The following description is from the Lausanne website:
Lausanne is a global Movement that mobilizes evangelical leaders to collaborate for world evangelization. It grew out of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization convened in Lausanne, Switzerland by Rev. Billy Graham and Bishop Jack Dain. The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization (October 2010) in Cape Town, South Africa, brought together 4000 Christian leaders, representing 198 countries. The resulting Cape Town Commitment serves as the blueprint for the Movement’s activities.
Lausanne’s vision is to: See the whole church take the whole Gospel to the whole world. If you have never read the Cape Town Commitment, I would encourage you to do so, it is breathtakingly beautiful in both language and tone.
I am a big believer in what Lausanne is about and what it is doing. Too often we see only part of the church (inevitably, our part) take only part of the Gospel (the part we are most comfortable with) to only part of the world. The Great Commission is so much greater than this and is only possible if we put our denominational differences aside and humbly work together. We can never see the whole church take the whole Gospel to the whole world if we keep ourselves and our organizations isolated in safe and comfortable denominational silos. This is where Lausanne has been a catalyst movement, breaking down the silo ministry mentality and facilitating mission bridge-building and collaborative partnerships to see world evangelization happen. This is the context and backdrop of the consultation I had the privilege to be part of.
Picture taken by Gordon Govier
The North American Young Leaders’ Consultation involved the consultation of 120 select thought-leaders and change-agents from across North America to discuss key elements of the Cape Town Commitment from a North American perspective (there will be several other Young Leader Consultations in different parts of the world culminating in a world consultation at some point in the future). Within the consultation, I had the privilege of being in the Media and Art’s Working Group (my passion and growing area of expertise) where we discussed the areas of the Cape Town Commitment related to the Media and Arts.
In terms of reactions, my time in Madison was phenomenal on several fronts:
The people I met were amazing, resulting in the creation of some life-long friends, partnerships and connections.
The discussions were profitable, fruitful and honoured Jesus.
The experience was incredibly hopeful. I meet some amazing change-agents, authors, and leaders, resulting in an extraordinary hope for the future of the church in North America. My new friend Adam Jeske (@adamjeske) skillfully expresses this hope here.
The collaborations and discussions that occurred will lead to catalytic partnerships, ministries and future dialogue that will have an enduring impact on world evangelism.
My participation in Lausanne (this consultation in particular) has helped to re-orientate my life, ministry and passion around the mission of God to see the whole church bring the whole Gospel to the whole world. It my joy and privilege to join with others to serve our Triune God in His mission for His beloved world and for His glory alone.
In Willy Nelson’s brilliant rendition of Coldplay’s “Back To The Start” (graphically narrated by Johnny Kelly and brilliantly employed by Chipotle) we are introduced to the concept that has become part of society’s collective consciousness as we move away from the apex of industrial society, increasingly wary of its negative effects.
“The film, by film-maker Johnny Kelly, depicts the life of a farmer as he slowly turns his family farm into an industrial animal factory before seeing the errors of his ways and opting for a more sustainable future. Both the film and the soundtrack were commissioned by Chipotle to emphasize the importance of developing a sustainable food system.” (From the YouTube description)
Specifically related to food production, North Americans are increasingly aware and alarmed by how industrialization has coopted agriculture to the point where food is genetically engineered, chemically induced and artificially flavored.
This pervasive phenomenon has extended itself to the church and has extensively infected our thinking. Specifically, it has created an industrial view of discipleship. In fact, I have come to believe that this is one of the biggest problems facing the church and why our (industrialized) discipleship models are failing. Even when we seek to solve our discipleship problems, we end up using re-engineered models based on previously held and universally accepted industrial paradigms because they have so infected our consciousness. We can simplify things, we can created better programs at different times with creative graphics and materials, but if these are all created under the same industrial metaphors and paradigms of an industrial model of thinking, they will continue to lead us in unhealthy directions. As Albert Einstein famously said:
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Before the church begins to rethink its discipleship models, it must recognize the fundamental and effectual nature of our pervasive industrial metaphors, language and methodologies that frame many of our concepts. In a beginning attempt to critically reflect on our industrial paradigms, I want to suggest four (garden) stakes of Post-Industrial Discipleship (Note: These stakes are not intended to be comprehensive and others are welcome).
Four Stakes of Post-Industrialized Discipleship
Efficiency does NOT Equal Effectiveness
A core tenant of industrialism is the elevation of efficiency. In industrialization, the goal is to create something in less time with less effort (efficiency). This thinking has seeped into the DNA of the Church through our discipleship models and methodologies. The goal of our industrialized discipleship ‘processes’ is to make disciples with the least amount of effort, cost and time (evaluated with similar metrics as a factory).
But what if discipleship was viewed through the lens of a pre-industrial agricultural paradigm, the dominant metaphors and paradigm Jesus used, void of industrial baggage? What if we viewed discipleship as something that is often completely inefficient and in that inefficiency, it finds its effectiveness?
An example of this is found in “spiritual disciplines.” Spiritual disciplines were understood for centuries as key practices for Christians and a means to grow in devotion and maturity in Christ. A tenant of spiritual disciplines is found in the world “discipline,” implying continual practice and focus even when it is not efficient. It is not a coincidence that spiritual disciplines have become less understood and practiced in our industrialized discipleship models.
The same principles that govern success in a factory should NOT govern success in a church or in a believer’s life. We are not machines! The church is not a factory for making machines! Jesus used pre-industrial agricultural images such as vine, branches, soul, seeds, etc. because they communicated something about discipleship. As a result, we must begin to increasingly recognize the inefficiency that is inherent in disciple making and reject the paradigms that trumpet efficiency as effectiveness.
Pastors are NOT Factory Managers and the Church is NOT a Discipleship Factory
The role of the pastor has been an increasing topic of conversation and debate in church circles. Questions of what the pastor is called to do and whether this lines up with the North American church’s practice are commonplace.
I would like to suggest that the role of pastor has also been coopted by our industrialized metaphors. The pastor’s role has radically changed in the last fifty years. As churches have grown in size, scale and functionality so too has the pastor’s job description. There was a time where a pastor’s role would have been analogous to a farm hand. Using the metaphor of a farm, the pastor would have worked the fields, planted, harvested, and would have served the Good Gardener (Jesus who is the head of the Church). Or using shepherd language, the pastor is a shepherd of a flock following together the Good Shepherd (Jesus who is the head of the Church).
As culture has moved further into industrialization, the role of pastor has also evolved. The common contemporary pastor’s job description would be analogous now to that of a factory manager, making sure the machine is running and that profits are being made. I am in no way trying to be draconian here, just making an observation based on cultural changes and the impact of industrial metaphors and influences.
100% Organic and Natural Discipleship
As we move past the apex of industrialization in our agricultural environments, we have begun to see an increased desire and push towards things being 100% Organic and Natural in our grocery store’s produce aisles. Just as the Chipotle video demonstrates, people want to go back to the start and eat foods that are pesticide free, unaltered genetically and grown sustainably. Notwithstanding the benefits of industrialization on agriculture (which also exist), the impact of the industrialization on our consciousness is demonstrated in and through our discipleship vernacular.
Recently, I’ve seen several discipleship seminars/books/articles using the word “greenhouse,” describing how our churches need to be “greenhouses for disciples.” On the surface, this sounds good but consider the industrialization language/paradigm it employs and the resulting effects. A greenhouse’s very purpose is to shelter plants, specifically seedlings, from nature’s elements (storms, pests, diseases, etc.) protecting them until they are mature enough to be planted in the “natural” environment. Although this may sounds noble, could this philosophy be part of the problem with our current discipleship models and paradigms? Should we be sheltering people from culture, friends, information, etc. as they grow in their faith? Should we be protecting them from potentially negative influences or is nature’s environment part of the maturing process? Is our sheltering of them during their maturity process doing more harm than good? Are our churches filled with people suffering from “Greenhouse Disease” (The phenomena of “Greenhouse Disease” exists in agriculture, stemming from a large population of one plan in a confined location)?
I think we see this manifested in how we have, over the last couple decades, separated evangelism from discipleship. We have come to believe in the compartmentalized idea that if we disciple people (note that most people wrongly assume this solely means educate) then they will, as a result, go and evangelize (share their faith) with others. In other words, if we keep believers in the greenhouse, they will eventually decided to go out into the elements thriving and reproducing as a natural progression in their maturity. This, I believe, is false! Instead, what if this mentality is the problem? What if the world, with its spiritual storms, pest and diseases, etc.), is part of the maturing process? What if evangelism, sharing one’s faith, wasn’t the result of growing in your relationship with Christ but a key and foundational part of this process? What if, by keeping new Christians confined in an artificial environment, we infect them with “Christian Greenhouse Disease?”
The church must begin to critically reflect on its discipleship language and metaphors and begin to shift towards discipleship that is 100% Organic and Natural, void of artificiality. Although this process may be messy and exist outside the greenhouse, this might actually be the fertile ground disciples are grown and matured.
Uniformity and Yield are NOT Goals to be Sought
With the apex of industrialization, particularly in the area of agriculture, two goals emerged: uniformity and yield. To be efficient and increasingly profitable, the crop produced must have a high yield and must be as uniform as possible to increase the efficiency of the machines involved in harvest and the process of shipping. This is evidenced in a recent LA Times article that reports genetically tomatoes are lacking in flavor because of the increased value of uniformity. (My favorite quote in the article: “’If I see this tomato is not uniformly ripe, that means that it’s not the cardboard junk that they’ve been producing for the past 30 years,’ Klee said. ‘It’s almost like a badge of honor.’” There are so many connections to our uniform discipleship models in this statement.)
This mentality has influenced the church when it comes to discipleship. The bigger a church gets, the more complex the discipleship process and the more it has to be based upon the two values/goals of industrialization: yield and uniformity. As a result, people have become caught in the cogs of our programs that have served to create a one-size-fits-all discipleship process. We have created processes and models under the influence of industrialization to the place where people are forced into uniformity, even if it means they lose their taste and uniqueness (or as Jesus said in Matthew 5: salt and light). Additionally, we evaluate the success of our programs and methodologies based on industrialized goals of increased yield. In other words, the more people attending a program, activity, or event the more successful it must have been.
Moving forward, we need to recognize our tendency toward the values of uniformity and yield in our industrial paradigms, seeking to allow for diversity and uniqueness in the lives of people and their relationships with Christ. People will learn differently, connect with God in different ways, and live out their faith with uniqueness. All of which is not a sign of disorganization or failure, but a sign of God’s creative genius.
Conclusion
When it comes to discipleship, we need to “get back to the start!” We need to recognize the impact our industrialized metaphors have had on our discipleship concepts and reawaken the pre-industrial organic metaphor of ‘growth’ within our mechanistically mastered methodologies of ‘make.’ We are not machines, created by a factory in order to create more machines. We are relational beings, created by a relational God, created for relationship with God and others. Our discipleship concepts and understandings must reflect this reality.
We’ve embraced a myth in our culture. It is a myth that we all wish was true. In fact, we operate our lives and schedules around this myth in search of its illusive and tempting claim, consequently robbing ourselves of the very thing we are searching for. This myth is called “Planned Isolated Quality Time.”
Let me explain…
In our culture, we have come to accept that the illusive and mythical reality of planned isolated quality time is possible and so we schedule our lives around creating this mythical time in our various relationships, futilely attempting to compensate for the lack of quantity time we have in our busy schedules. I believe we accept and embrace this myth specifically because it means we can live without boundaries or margins, perceivably skipping those realities because we have scheduled quality time.
We seek this mythical quality time with our spouses, believing that if we just schedule special times where we will be together alone, it will make up for the hours spent apart through our daily routines of busyness.
We seek the mythical planned isolated quality time with our kids, believing that if we just schedule special events and holidays (planned isolated quality times), they will offset the lack of quantity time spend because of our overfilled schedules.
I want to suggest that planned isolated quality time is a myth! My experience has always been that quality time always happens spontaneously in the midst of quantity time and is often unplanned and never isolated. Said again, quality time does exist, it is just very difficult to plan it. When we attempt to plan quality time, at the expense for quantity time, we end up starving those we love and ourselves from the quality time we all desperately desire and need.
I write this article with full disclosure that I am not an expert in this and am constantly learning what this means in my every day life. I, too, am at times a believer in the myth of planned isolated quality time and am constantly (re)learning to reject this myth.
Quality time exists spontaneously within the selfless gift of quantity time. We all desire what can only be accomplished through quantity time with those we love and those who love us. This takes effort and self-sacrifice but it is worth it – the ones we love are worth it. Reject the myth and accept the hard truth that time is an expensive gift worth giving and sacrificing for those we love.
