On newspapers, wikis, and the local church

I can think of a few instances over the years where we were instructed in church to get our doctrine from just one place- the local church leaders (and the leaders directly above them, of course). They used some analogy about only drinking from one well- I can't quite remember, but the idea was that it was unhealthy to just take in Biblical teaching from a variety of sources. This was back in pre-internet times.

Now in 2009, with the unprecedented freedom of information the internet brings, and the opportunities to not only listen to others, but to connect and exchange stories online- I wonder if this constitutes the end of the "local church" as we have known it. The local church will surely continue to exist as a bricks-and-mortar location for doing church, but it won't exist anymore as the sole provider of community, teaching, doctrine, leadership, etc.

I've watched with a twinge of loss as the major print newspapers begin to fold (hey that was a pun) one by one. To me, they are one of the most meaningful symbols of the pre-internet era, when the news was written by just a handful of people who were part of a defined institution in society. The newspapers' content carried far more weight back then- it was vital for announcing real events to the people: the end of the war, the election of a new leader, or the state of the economy. But now information, rather than funneling through a few highly-trusted institutions, floods into our lives through endless myriad tributaries, rivers and streams. I rarely buy or read a print newspaper. When I do, it's often just for the experience of slowing down, having a coffee and a quiet moment. It's not because the newspaper is a necessary messenger in my life anymore.

I think the experience of belonging to a local church is trending in the same direction. When I consider the "wells" I drink from, they are numerous: the Bible, leaders/friends in my local church, magazines, websites, blogs, books, podcasts, music, television shows- and those are just the so-called "Christian" sources. In truth, I draw much more deeply from sources in my everyday life: the world around me, my loved ones, my children.

In the past, local churches were much more homogenous. If you were an Anglican, you went to an Anglican Church. You sang only Anglican hymns, you read from Anglican prayer books. You might have been familiar with the history of your particular denomination. You would have been familiar with the doctrine of the Anglican Church. The local church would have been close to that sole, vital source, as the newspaper was.

To draw my instruction, encouragement and even faith community from a variety of sources was always painted as a negative thing, but I think it is not. Perhaps this practice could even hold great promise for the future of the church, to finally escape the divisions that have plagued the church since its beginnings. Allow me just to dream for a moment... if all the separate rivers, the denominations and schools of theology start to pool together in a great ocean of thought, people would increasingly hear the thoughts of "others" and realize they're not all that different. I've seen books, for instance, cross tremendous denominational divides- and when the readers find out that the author was Anglican, or Evangelical, or a Christian peace activist- they think to themselves, well I guess those [insert group name] aren't so bad after all.

I can see two distinct effects occuring in this internet-age proliferation of information sources: 1. People are becoming less discriminating of where they get their information (allowing for the emergence of I-Reporters, for example); and 2. People are less likely to put their trust in the simple face-value of that information.

These effects are evident in the growing popularity of online wiki sources, such as wikipedia and wikinews. A wiki is a more egalitarian way of sharing knowledge- anyone is allowed to contribute. This causes the wiki-users to be more alert and cognizant of the problems surrounding the sharing of information. Everyone contributes, and everyone draws, but with an awareness that there are pitfalls involved in any search for truth, and that every piece of information must be considered and tested, and then incorporated into your life if deemed helpful. It moves us away from blind dependence on a small group of highly-specialized, deeply trusted experts to interpret truth for us.

I think this is a good move.

Listening to the Artists

A terrific quote on why we need artists, and why we need to listen hard to what the artists of our time are saying, and the questions they are asking-
it's a good antidote to living in the Land of Already-Having-All-The-Answers that is the Christian experience today.

"Art can warm even a chilled and sunless soul to an exalted spiritual experience. Through art we occasionally receive- indistinctly, briefly- revelations the likes of which cannot be achieved by rational thought.

It is like the small mirror of legend: you look into it but instead of yourself you glimpse for a moment the Inaccessible, a realm forever beyond reach. And your soul begins to ache... "

-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from "the Nobel Lecture on Literature"

Also, I remember reading a review of that Christian movie starring Kirk Cameron, Fireproof. the reviewer said that it was a solid movie, as far as moving making goes, but that it wasn't a great movie, and that no Christian movie could be, because this religion does not allow for the kind of honesty that real Art requires. Hmmm.