Anthony was my guest for last month’s #missionalchat on Twitter*. Right after that wrapped up, Anthony sat down with me for a Skype videochat interview. It was on Martin Luther King Jr. Day (January 16), and Anthony spoke about his own personal family connection to Dr. King, as well as Dr. King’s larger legacy and influence on Anthony’s own missional activity through Mission House in Salisbury, North Carolina. Here’s that interview:

Read a detailed transcript of Anthony’s insights from the January 2012 #missionalchat over on the Emergent Village Voice blog.

*Tune into #missionalchat on Twitter on Monday, February 20 for a discussion with Chris Smith (@ERBks) about his new e-book The Virtue of Dialogue: Conversation As A Hopeful Practice of Church Communities.

He is the author of the new book Religion For Atheists, and he’s making waves in the UK by leading a campaign to raise £1m to build a “temple for atheists” in downtown London.

His July 2011 TEDxEdinburgh talk (see below) recently sparked a lot of conversation (130+ comments) on the Emergent Village Community Facebook group. In the talk, de Botton extols the virtues of religion from the perspective of someone who eschews religion in favor of atheism:

Here are some of the things de Botton says atheists can learn from the great religions of the world:

1. Guidance, Morality, and Consolation — de Botton suggests atheists need to learn how to teach these three things (essentially, how to live one’s life) like religion does, especially through the use of the Christian-style “sermon.”
2. Repetition — Religion repeats its truths over and over again, which is a very effective way of teaching.
3. Arrange Time — Religious worldview says we need calendars to make sure we encounter religious ideas throughout the year, year after year after year (see 2).
4. Rituals — Experiences that force us to contemplate great truths (e.g., Buddhist moon ceremony).
5. Oratory — Speaking well, using a really convincing way of saying what you think/believe (see 1).
6. Physical Action — Religion teaches we are not just brains, we are also bodies (e.g., Jewish washing rituals).
7. Art — Religious art teaches you what to love and what to fear/hate; art is didactic.
8. Organization — Atheists should follow the pattern of religions to form large, multi-national institutions that leverage scale to “fight for the things of the mind.”

Emerging church leaders in the UK are engaging de Botton’s work — and he’s engaging back with them. See Kester Brewin‘s recent post, with a reply from de Botton (and Peter Rollins) in the comments. Brewin wonders, “It seems that there is a twin move here. Atheists like de Botton are moving towards religion, to try to colonise the secular space which still values ritual, and many religious people are moving towards an atheist reading of their faith … both agree that ‘God is dead’ … but what to do with the carcass?”

I think we’ll soon see de Botton’s thought be discussed more widely State-side as well. I hope those who do will also read Brewin’s critique/counterpoint to de Botton as a starting point for the conversation.

Here are some of the highlights from the discussion of de Botton from Facebook:

Susan Phillips wrote, “It is fascinating to hear an atheist describe what religion does well! And yet, what religion does well does not seem to be enough at the moment to maintain growing relationships. … If we have these very effective practices, gifts, attitudes, why aren’t they working better for us?”

Mike Leaptrott wrote, “1) Community; 2) Character development; 3) Social critique (i.e., prophecy). Those are the things I would keep for Religion 2.0. Superstition (thinking/believing something is true despite reasonable evidence to the contrary) is the first thing I would expel. Ironically, the most popular forms of Christianity today have expelled those three items and put most of their efforts in bolstering superstition/belief.”

Jonathan Brink critiqued de Botton, saying, “It seems like he’s trying to deduce a way of living, which is informed by a way of thinking (believing), yet at the same time critiquing collective formed beliefs (doctrine). So isn’t he debunking himself?”

Mike Leaptrott added, “If non-violence is better, it should be evident. Spreading the gospel should be the prophetic display of evidence for our different way of living. If the way of Christ is not evidentially better for humanity, then it should be abandoned. Only cults ask people to do what is destined to fail. … Clearly the addiction to violence has not served humanity well. Clearly a new kind of kingdom is needed.”

I really believe this is a natural and important continuation of the conversation around participatory church and the idea of creating “a new way of being religious,” as Eric Weiner has suggested.

Bonus Points:
What group of people are now more reviled than atheists in U.S. public opinion polls? Find out

Mennonite pastor Ryan Dueck has written a thoughtful critique of de Botton for The Christian Century blog network. Read “Updating my religion”

Have any of you read Bruce Sheiman’s An Atheist Defends Religion — and, if so, what do you think that book has to contribute to this conversation?

What do you think about de Botton’s Atheism 2.0, a “temple for atheists,” etc.? Does de Botton get the gifts of religion right or wrong? What are the implications for Religion 2.0? Please post in the comments!

Last November, Gallop spoke on “The Future of Advertising” at a conference organized by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) in France:

In her presentation, Gallop argues that people hate advertising, and if there’s going to be future for advertising it will need to become about these seven things:

1. Goodness — “People hate advertising, in general. However, people love advertising in particular.”
2. Transparency — Transparency is not just doing and telling others what you are doing, but inviting others to do it with you (e.g., inviting participation).
3. Action — “You are what you do.” Action-branding = “It is not about saying, it is about doing” and “it is not about telling, it is about being.”
4. Agency — Gallop believes ad agencies as they are today are too “old world” and will not survive, “They will have to blow up and start all over again.”
5. Money — Gallop says that “just doing it for the money” isn’t going to work in the long run. Be selective about who you work with and for.
6. Production — Gallop argues that new agencies should be built around her philosophy: “It’s about what you love doing and being ruthless about it.” Know who you are and focus on that.
7. Magic — Agencies need to figure out how to sell their creative work while giving the impression that it is magic and not “just anyone” can do it.

While I’m fascinated by Gallop’s assessment of the advertising industry itself, I’m struck by how these same seven characteristics are also defining for the future of my own industry, the church/religious/faith community industry. (Just substituted “churches” everywhere it says “advertising agencies” in the list above.)

Are You Ready for Some Football?
I’m thinking about all of this, of course, on Super Bowl Sunday. The one day out of the year that many Americans aren’t upset about advertisements. In fact, we look forward to them! We can’t wait to see which companies will be running ads during the Super Bowl and what creative (usually, high-budget) ads they’ve created to sell their products or services.

This year, there’s actually been a little bit of a “digital first” push, with Super Bowl ads premiering online days before their television debut. We’ve already seen the return of Ferris Bueller (11+ million views) and Jerry Seinfeld with the Soup Nazi (13+ million views) — both selling new cars.

And then, of course, the annual Doritos Super Bowl crowdsourcing contest to see which user-generated, fan-supported ad makes it on the air in primetime. Although sometimes the best ads being created aren’t the ones that get the most votes or make it on TV — like this one:

The point is, to borrow from Cindy Gallop, “If the Church is to have a future, it needs to be about these seven things.” And our churches need to become more like Super Bowl Sunday and less like something we all want to fast-forward through on our DVRs.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Care to unpack these seven characteristics and how they relate to churches/faith communities (since I didn’t!)? Or do you just want to give a shout-out to your favorite team playing in the big game? Whatever … Post it in the comments!

The Center for Progressive Christianity has produced something called “A Joyful Path,” but it seems more geared toward churches than homeschool families. (We’re actually going to start using “A Joyful Path” with the kids in Open Hearts Gathering.)

Chris Smith pointed me to Peter Enns’ book Telling God’s Story (with teaching and student guides) and, from the same publisher, The Story of the World series. Chris uploaded his review of Enns’ book to the Englewood website.

Eliacin Rosario-Cruz, from Seattle, replied: “When we homeschooled, we brewed our own. Godly Play + Howard Zinn + Paulo Freire + Gloria Anzáldua + bell hooks + unschooling. Our daughter has been in public school for six months now, after four years of homeschooling. She had some struggle with some of the way the school did the academics. However, her teachers and fellow classmates know her as a compassionate, cooperative, justice-seeking student. She could speak with pride and authority about her Puerto Rican/Latino heritage, and, better yet, out of a group of 50+ kids (3rd, 4th and 5th graders) she was the only one who knew and could speak about Bob Marley and reggae music.”

One person suggested Waldorf Schools homeschool material.

Chris Hill, from Albuquerque, replied: “I use a standardized form of academic curriculum, and the progressive Christian part is when I have real discussions about spirituality, religion and Christianity (including the philosophical, theological, and historical) with my kids. Believe it or not, we have several discussions a day that pretty much naturally occur. I do most of the initiating, and my oldest brings things up from time to time. I offer my input, others’ input in terms of possibilities, and encourage my kids to think deeply, but not to fret. Life is more about growing into a fuller sense of Self than it is ‘getting it right.’”

Does any of this help you? Do you know of other resources that you’d suggest adding to this list? Please post in the comments!

Here’s my attempt at curating the content coming out of #EVTC:

I just finished reading the Steve Jobs biography, and it didn’t quite end the way I expected it to. But as the author, Walter Isaacson explained, it only made sense that the last chapter would be largely written in Jobs’s own voice. That’s the way he was. The quote above is from that penultimate section of the book.

I believe what’s coming (not yet written on the page) is a major backlash against Apple as a corporation. Following the monumental campaign to stop SOPA and PIPA (as well as other recent victories, such as the Keystone Pipeline), I believe one of the next major popular movements will be to reform Apple as a company and the abuses to human rights it has allowed (and is allowing) to go on in its factories in China.

Public awareness is reaching a tipping point thanks to recent news stories highlighting the ongoing environment created by Steve Jobs during his tenure as Apple’s CEO.*

And, the fact is, many of us who use Apple products are also people who care deeply about the environment — and Apple’s record on that is not spotless. We also care deeply about human rights, and this is where we’ll stand up to the company that we cherish because of the “amazing” products it produces that we use every day. We’ll keep buying those products, but we’ll demand change from Apple. We’ll demand that they do better, because they can do better. They can certainly afford to do better. So they must do better.

Start by signing this petition to tell Apple CEO Tim Cook to do more to protect workers in Chinese factories.

(*It’s interesting to note that Cook is challenging the veracity of these stories, but it only makes one wonder if Steve Jobs’s “reality distortion field” is simply still in effect.)

This gorgeous left/right brain artwork has been floating around the Web for several months now. It’s apparently from an ad campaign by Mercedes-Benz, but the Benz logo has been creatively cropped out to just leave this sort of colorful infographic. Lately I’ve been thinking about creativity and intuition — left brain, right brain, and … gut.

Left
I love what Seth Barnes says, “Life is complicated and busy and needs more parties. I think God loves them. I think heaven is a party. Parties let you switch off the left brain and open up your spirit.”

Right
Daniel Pink has written provocatively about “Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future“:

“If the Industrial Age was built on people’s backs, and the Information Age on people’s left hemispheres, the Conceptual Age is being built on people’s right hemispheres. We’ve progressed from a society of farmers to a society of factory workers to a society of knowledge workers. And now we are progressing yet again – to a society of creators and empathizers, pattern-recognizers, and meaning-makers.”

Gut
I was recently reminded of this hilarious exchange between Stephen Colbert and President George W. Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Jump to 3:09 when Colbert explains how he and Bush are not “members of the Factinista” but rather go with their guts:

Ironically, there is research — in a book and in Scientific American — that seems to support Mr. Colbert’s comedic claim:

“An often-overlooked network of neurons lining our guts … is so extensive some scientists have nicknamed it our ‘second brain.’ … The second brain contains some 100 million neurons, more than in either the spinal cord or the peripheral nervous system.”

What I find fascinating is that Michael Gershon, an expert in the nascent field of neurogastroenterology, says this: “The second brain doesn’t help with the great thought processes … religion, philosophy and poetry is left to the brain in the head.”

Why isn’t religion more intuitive? Why don’t we go with our gut more often than our head? Is it simply just another consequence of The Enlightenment? What is your gut telling you?

Bonus Points
One of the most creative people I’ve ever met, former Disney imagineer McNair Wilson, posted a great list of descriptions for both left and right brains — along with two more beautiful left/right brain images to go with the one posted above.

Here’s more right/left brain stuff from ChurchCrunch.

Alternate title: Should We Collaborate or Should We Not Now? (to the tune of The Clash)

There’s been some interesting online conversation lately about the subject of collaboration — both pro and con, interestingly enough.

Pro
Joe Boyd points to this video as an example of what one can accomplish together, rather than alone:

While it’s a clever idea for performing a song, I’m not sure this is indicative of the kind of collaboration most of us will be doing in our lifetimes.

Con
From his creative enclave in Singapore, Fernando Gros points to a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times by Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, entitled “The Rise of the New Groupthink.” In it, Cain makes this statement:

“Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption. And the most spectacularly creative people in many fields are often introverted, according to studies by the psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Gregory Feist. They’re extroverted enough to exchange and advance ideas, but see themselves as independent and individualistic. They’re not joiners by nature.”

To this, Fernando adds his own thoughts:

“The hard slog of creating, innovating and thinking is something we largely do alone. … It worries me that in many parts of society, including schools, we are not encouraging people to develop the skills required to work alone, for extended periods of time, on complex problems.

“In fact, I do believe there is something like a cult of collaboration, especially in tech and startup circles; the notion that no good idea can come from one person alone.

“It’s important not to get sucked into this. We do need other people in order to amplify our ideas at some point. But, if you are a creative person, an artist, musician, photographer or writer, you do not have to wait for a collaborator to show up before you start work on a project, or strive to perfect your craft.

“You can just go for it. Moreover, you can go a long, long way alone. In fact, if you can go it alone, you’ll have far more to offer your collaborators when you finally start working with them.”

I think Fernando’s advice is right on, and even though he (and Joe Boyd) self-identify as introverts and I’m an extreme (off the charts) extrovert, I too have found that working alone — from my home office here in Charlotte, when I’m not on the road — has given me space to do some deeper and more creative thinking. I can’t say that I’ve solved any of the huge, complex problems facing the Church (yet), but I am deeply grateful to have the kind of space I have in order to do the kind of work I’m doing — and for the great colleagues around the country that I then get to collaborate with.

What about you? Do you agree that having quiet space to create is essential? Or do you prefer to work closely with others? What are you working on that you just need to “go for it” and collaborate with others later?

Doug invited me on to discuss a new report released last week from the Johns Hopkins Non-Profit Economic Data Project that shows how non-profit organizations have outpaced for-profit companies over the past decade (2000-2010) in terms of job creation. Here’s how the conversation went:

I was particularly interested in how this new data shows the success that the non-profit sector has had over the past 10 years, even during the three main years of recession (2007-2009), adding jobs at a rate of 1.9% per year while the for-profit world shrank by 3.7% year over year during the same period. Today, the non-profit sector is the third largest employer in the U.S., with 10.7 million workers.

As someone who has worked in the non-profit world for the past 15 years, I am not surprised to see the data reveal that non-profits are creating more jobs than for-profits. Recently a reliable source confirmed for me that more than 500 new U.S. non-profit (501c3) organizations focused (in some way, shape or form) on addressing sex trafficking were created in just one year alone (2010). Those new non-profits no doubt employ people, in order to do the good work they are setting out to do (locally, nationally, or internationally).

It’s worth noting that this kind of “cause d’jour” proliferation of non-profit work is actually leading some leaders to suggest we need fewer non-profit organizations rather than more — fewer organizations that collaborate more/better with each other.

Churches vs. Non-Profits
Related to this whole conversation is the parallel story that the most common organizational form/financial structure for Christian churches in the U.S. has become increasingly unsustainable. Going the way of the dinosaur are churches of 50-100 people with full-time paid staff and large, inefficient buildings to maintain.

At the upcoming Funding the Missional Church conference in Minneapolis, speakers such as Bob Carlton will be discussing what churches can learn from successful non-profits about telling a compelling story, casting an inspiring vision, and engaging people in participation in the work of the ministry.

Where Are the Church Jobs?
A third conversation related to all this is being generated by people like Ryan Kemp-Pappan around holding denominational systems accountable for convincing women and men (especially young adults) to rack up enormous financial debt for going through seminary, doing unpaid internships, etc. — in order to attain the prize of a full-time paid ministry job at the end of the rainbow.

The argument is that the institutional church has made a promise to these folks and that promise includes gainful employment that will allow them to get out of debt, if not right away at least eventually. But the reality is the cost of higher education is putting everyone deeper and deeper into the hole, and the church ministry jobs that were supposed to be there when they got out of seminary (and through all the hoops) simply aren’t there.

My Presbyterian Church (USA) friends Landon Whitsitt and Carol Howard Merritt have already addressed this question to some degree already. I was slightly encouraged to hear Craig Van Gelder from Luther Seminary in the Twin Cities confess last week: “We’ve done a lot to address student debt, mostly by blaming the student. The problem is not the student, the problem is us.”

Much more has been said and will need to be said about this. Seminaries are an industry in the midst of deep change too.

At the risk of being accused of promoting a “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” philosophy, I will say that seminary graduates (and others) will need to become a lot more entrepreneurial and create opportunities for themselves, rather than wait for opportunities to be handed to them. My advice: Create a position for yourself rather than waiting for someone else to hire you. Or, to put it another way: Spend less time searching the employment listings and more time creating your own business ministry plan.

Chris recently began hosting TLDR (The LockerGnome Daily Report), which streams live from his home office in Seattle and is then edited into short segments for broadcast on his YouTube channel. It’s an innovative use of live streaming and recorded Web video, and his ability to produce voluminous (and consistently good) content is impressive.

Recently, Chris posted this delicious morsel from TLDR, calling on his audience to help him craft the content for the daily show and making some salient points about how online content will be shaped now and in the future.

As someone who is very much interested in the intersection of TV and social media, Chris’ comments in this video are very intriguing to me: “This is a television show. … Watch it wherever, dude, I don’t care. You can watch it on a real TV set, a piece of hardware, or a smaller screen. It doesn’t matter. Television is, to me, anymore (sic) an ethereal concept.”

This seems to jive pretty well with the NPR report I heard recently about the recent changes to YouTube to ramp up millions of channels on YouTube to compete with traditional broadcast and cable TV.

Check out Chris’ thoughts on the future of TV and content curation: “Curation is the next level for publishing. You! You are the next level”:

Check out my recent thoughts on content curation.

Check out my YouTube channel, which I’m going to be giving some more love in 2012.

Now if I could just get my own damn TV to connect to the Internet so I could watch YouTube …

Is your TV connected to the Internet yet? Why or why not? Do you agree or disagree with Chris Pirillo? Or what’s your YouTube channel? Share in the comments!