Thelogy after Google: Responses to Chad and Professor Clayton

So I don't know if I am going to get through all of this because it is late and I am tired indeed but let me know what you think

Claytons article says:

But what church actually is has always been deeply affected by the world around it. When that world changes, so too does church. Everyone acknowledges that we are living in a time of revolutionary change. So tell me why we don’t think church is in for some radical changes?

Chad disputes

What the church actually is should be affected by what her Lord has called her to be, not what the world dictates. I think this is setting the bar far too low. What if, instead, the world was deeply affected by the Church within it? That is a far more radical idea and one that I think the church has long given up on ever since it married with the state as far back as Constantine.

I do agree that a church has to be affected by its context, which is the world around it. I think there is a problem with the way these responses are defining world. What is the world of a particular church? What is the world of the church in general? Is a church expected to meet the needs of every single person on this earth? Or is the church supposed to be specific? I think the challenge with many churches today is trying to meet the needs of the world. There are people right outside the any churches door that continue to display the actually needs of the "world" around the church. Instead the church looks at the news papers and television in order to assess what it should be doing. The work of the church or your church is right outside. It is amazing how sometimes thing that church needs to be affected by become invinsible in exchange for what someone else sees in the world.

In fact, if i may take a commercial, this is where the church and theology after Google must be careful. There has to be a point where we look beyond the screen to our physical environment. Our theology has to consider the real people that are right outside and sometimes within our homes. My concern is that theology after google might not contribute to the efforts of those right outside of our door. People may began to become addicted to e-evangelism and e- ministry and e- helping that seeing people and touching people becomes irrelevant. In this way, I can understand why technology can become a threat to the church and its mission. Many church mission encourage people to leave the comfort of their homes and their churches to go and touch and be with the people. I mean what about that?

If I may get back to the point, I would contribute to Phillip Claytons opinion by posing some question:

Professor Clayton: If the church changes with the world then why aren't more churches adapting to the changes in their community? Why are the messages still spiritual and less practical? (yes that is a contextual generalization) Why is the church still separate? Why are there still huge churches in poor places?

Chad:

I certainly catch your drift about being affected more by the call of the lord moreso than the world, but I do believe that God call us to be in touch with those around us. It seems like your comment excluded the necessity of listening, feeling, and addressing the world we live it. It is a reality that the world is changing. It is a reality that the church is on the brink of extinction because the church is holding on to call that are ceturies old (or should I say continuing to package the call in ancient wrapping paper). Can't the church change with the world and still be in line with God's will? Does the idea of change have to lead to the change of the core message of Christ?

I don't think so. I think we can preach loving your neighbor in different clothes with a different discourse. In fact, I think it is more than necessary.

see more of what i addressing by clicking here