As an fan of blogs, I read a lot of them. Not as many as Jimmy or Blake, no doubt - but I'm trying.
Over the past year, I've noticed a recurring theme among the blogs of the who's-who within the celebrities of American church growth. (STOP...nobody get loud about church growth, okay?)
There is still an overwhelming amount of blogging about Starbucks by pastors and leaders of the postmodern/new mega-church/internet-savvy American church.
Starbucks is cool. It's promotes a great, casual atmosphere that has been finely honed by experts in architecture and design. They sell a product that consistently tastes good and the same from town-to-town.
What I don't get is why so many hipster-pastors blog about it so much. I like franchises, but if you surf any of the bigger sites within evangelical blogosphere (and I'll be happy to point you toward some,) you'll find that these guys talk A LOT about Starbucks.
It's fine - a blog is a blog - it's a journal and those dudes can talk about what they want. But I think there's something worth talking about there.
You see, a lot of "futurists" (STOP...nobody get loud about futurists,) social critics, and urban observers talk about a third place.
As best I understand it, the third place is some sort of community "center," some place that exists as a gathering where people retreat from their first two places: home and work. Many of these experts claim Starbucks is the best example of "the third place" we have in America. Forget that it's franchised and programmed to the degree, people gravitate there to hang-out, meet business associates, get their day started or engage in serious discussions that might not work in louder, more active locales like a restaurant or diner.
I wonder if that's why these figureheads of current church culture (STOP...do not get loud about current church culture) refer to it so much. No doubt they enjoy Starbucks, but is it possible that really they're responding to the fact that they've found a third place that suits them?
Most of you enjoy Starbucks...but have you blogged about it? Do you talk about it in conversation? It seems to me that we talk about the stuff in our lives for a few reasons:
1. We're excited; we enjoy; we want others to experience the same (simple celebration.)
2. We're actually subconsciously responding because a deeper need is being met and we want other to feel the same (profound celebration.)
3. We think it's what somebody wants to hear (marketing.)
I'm not sure why so many of these guys and gals talk about Starbucks so much. I just hope it isn't #3.
14 comments:
I'm fascinated that anyone actually spends time at Starbuck's. There's nowhere to sit. I'm in, I'm out.
Now, Sweet Eugene's? I'll hang out for awhile when I can.
What we're missing in the U.S. (and our Evango-bloggers could not exploit this) are pubs. The pub is the third place in Japan; they're everywhere. It's where you spend your evening.
Sweet...I'm all for the pub idea!
4: we spend so much money there we feel that talking about it will help justify the cost.
"hey guys, have you seen my new Mac? Yeah, it does everything and it's way better than your PC... Yesterday I typed up an e-mail with my Mac..."
Uhh, I meant starbucks.
Just a theory :-)
I think this is another example of church adopting culture, instead of church defining culture. With Starbucks, at least we have found a means to an end. Would we be discussing this if it were Chick-fil-A instead? I heard at least 40 youth workers at convention discussing thier hang outs, bible studies, small groups and evangelism at Chick-fil-A. I love me some Christian chicken!
When Len Sweet writes a book about chicken, then we'll talk, Dave.
(Actually, the concept of Leonard Sweet writing a book about chicken doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility...)
Sad, really.
sad or brilliant?
todd and i have already had the conversation that i'm about to introduce here (or at least we started the conversation), so nobody mistake my tone here. these are just my thoughts on something that he's saying. i don't have any agenda.
that said, here's a quote from the todd's post:
"It's fine - a blog is a blog - it's a journal and those dudes can talk about what they want."
nope, not true. I know this isn't exactly on point, but I think that this is important to note (and yes, Todd, I know you I disagree).
Here's the deal. I think it's potentially dangerous to say that blogs are synonomous with journals.
Nobody uses their journal to poll people about taser-banning or movies or political candidates.
Nobody uses their journal to get opinions on their artistic and business ventures.
And nobody pays for a service to count the number of times that people read their journal every day.
blogs -- at least ones like this one and mine and many that we all read -- are exercises in localized, amateur journalism.
like newspaper or magazine articles, except no one is editing us (which is scary) or paying us (which is understandable).
you want to talk about cultural trends that are totally weird, i think you start there.
and here's something else. blogs are very public, and we are very responsible for what happens in public (and pastors/elders have an even higher responsiblity than other folks), so we can't just "write about whatever we want." not in this kingdom.
oh, and the "third place"? you're there right now. it's the amazing collection of ones and zeros called the world wide web.
just something to think about.
I do think it's a bit off point, Ross, but I'm game.
First of all, I think context is always important. I don't think that anybody is hearing me say "they can write what they want" and thinking I don't believe in standards. We are talking about Starbucks, after all. I think all of you guys understand what I'm getting at - they can talk about Starbucks if they want to. I doubt anybody's confused on that one. Maybe there's a real danger to be found, taking my line to the logical extension as some sort of truth-is-relative-mumbo-jumbo, but it's me... And I don't think I'm leading the culture astray here. And I don't think I ever will. And so I don't think the line is dangerous.
I remember a time when Neil McClendon was really angry about the Baloche/LeBlanc song, "Above All." I get it. I feel just as passionate about some United songs. And I'll say that I too think the song is pretty poorly written. But where I strayed from Neil's viewpoint was in the overall sense of danger in the song. I kept thinking - what's the endgame here? Is this song contributing to a growing self-obsessed Christianity? Sure. Is this the only song contributing to a growing self-obsessed Christianity. No way. It just never seemed that dangerous to me. That's what this aspect of the conversation reminds me of - that somebody is telling me that I'm doing something dangerous, but I just can't see it.
Second, I think that wording is important. I said the line exactly the way I think. But saying "they can write whatever they want" is not the same as saying "they SHOULD write whatever they want" and I hope nobody would confuse the two. It's a fact - they absolutely CAN write what they want. (What I said...)
I'll commend you on your approach - referencing all items from my own blog is effective. Referencing tasers, movies, politics and a site meter (which I don't pay for, by the way,) all makes your point that blogs are different from journals. It's a persuasive approach, no doubt.
It's interesting to have someone respond so strongly to a line - a line that I might find totally normal but seems to communicate some sense of danger or irresponsibility to another.
And as to the web-as-third-place, that's a great persective.
Okay...so we've hit the nature of language as it communicates a larger cultural danger, Neil McClendon, "Above All," and freedom of speech. Well, my friend, if we weren't off topic already, we're certainly headed that way!
Great thoughts, man. I appreciate them all. Even if, you know, they're like totally wrong and stuff.
yes! this is the kind of dialogue that i'm looking for.
i'm off to bed. if this discussion is still interesting tomorrow, i'll write some responses.
otherwise, thanks for letting me chase a rabbit.
Well, hurry up, man. I've got 12 more blogs all saved as drafts and I have to get them out there.
Guess I'll just twitter.
I had to look it up. I assume "You took the fall and thought of me above all" is the offending line? It should be; it's a lie. Lies are always dangerous, but there are degrees to it.
i was just going to leave this one hanging, but then i just thought that might be rude, so i'll respond. however, to respond to each and every point would take forever, and my guess is that nobody wants to read that.
fortunately, todd, you've provided me with an excellent rabbit to chase. and that rabbit just happens to illustrate my point perfectly. what luck!
"Above All."
i would've never gone there, but you did, so here we go.
is it dangerous? well, the song says that as Jesus was "taking the fall," (i.e. the cross), that He thought of me, above all. What does "all" mean? We can only assume it means all.
So, when Jesus died on the cross, He thought of me above His Father.
That would make Jesus an idolater.
Is that dangerous?
Uh, yeah.
So, no offense, Todd, but if you "just can't see it," then I'm totally stumped as to how to proceed in that conversation. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree. I'm certainly ok with that.
Dude, you know i love you. But you brought it up. And you know i'm a huge Baloche fan, but he blew it on that one.
going back to the original point, sometimes i just think we put too many things in the "it's no big deal" category. I'm not saying you do that, but that's what this particular conversation feels like to me. We're called to do "all to the glory of God." And, again, we have to assume that all means all.
(here's one other minor point. I don't know if you were joking when you referenced "freedom of speech," but if you really think i'm trying to debate our American right to say whatever we want to, then we're missing each other worse than i could've possibly imagined. again, i'm talking about living in a Kingdom, not a democracy. Like I said, minor point.)
I'm fine if you disagree (it wouldn't be the first time) but I do think it's interesting that you chose to illustrate your "danger" point by defending a song that is more dangerous than anything i've heard from United in a long time.
thoughts?
love,
Mr Totally Wrong And Stuff
Yeah, "Above All" is horrible. Agreed. Totally agreed.
But I can only speak from my experience and I can say this: any time I've ever been in worship where the song's been played, I've never ever thought it was about me.
I realize it's wrong and badly written and perhaps one of the darker moments in the contemporary worship movement, but I remember being at a worship deal where it was being played and I was honestly worshipping. I realized that I wasn't even thinking about that line. I was thinking about the Lord's sacrifice - what He left behind, what He endured.
I remember looking around the room, seeing all these people with hands in the air and I wondered if they were different - that they were being moved by something way more selfish than what I was feeling. It's entirely possible...I have no idea and never will be able to know whether or not those folks were feeling something similiar or opposite. I just know that it felt like a genuinely God-honoring experience. Maybe I'm leaning too much on "feeling." Trust me, it wouldn't be the first time.
Does that make sense? Theologically, I understand how wrong that line is. I've just never heard the song and thought that Jesus thought of me over His Father. That's just my take, and you've certainly played and toured and served lots more camps, churches and places that I have, so you know way better how a song like this can shape a generation.
As to that, I'm more than happy to defer to your experience rather than mine.
It may sound weird, but, in a live setting, the song's never seemed all that scary to me. I realize I may get slapped for that, but I'm being "authentic" regardless.
Enough of this back-and-forth business...okay, everybody:
What do you think of the tune "Above All?" Where do you stand? Let's get some more perspective.
What if Jesus wasn't thinking of me at all? It's certainly possible. I rather like to think He was thinking of the joy set before Him.
Some things are adiaphora. I don't think singing untrue things to God falls under that category. It's why I can't stand "Indescribable." I don't want to sing to a God Who went to a lot of trouble to describe Himself that He can't do it.
Truth is a very important aspect of an artist's work.
Post a Comment