Forging Sacred Spaces: The Value of Ritual and Tradition

For many Christians, especially younger ones, “tradition” is a dirty word. When the word is spoken or written, it conjures images of cold rituals and overblown ceremonies. Many see traditions as unnecessary elements of faith which suck the life and personality out of our walk with Christ. For many years, I felt this way. I didn’t want to schedule regular times for reading my Bible or praying. I didn’t want to make my faith about showing up to church just because I was expected to. I wanted a relationship with God that was spontaneous and dynamic, and I mistakenly believed that tradition would make that impossible.

When I was in high school, I was swept up in the whole, “It’s a relationship, not a religion” trend. I watched all those trendy videos on the internet. I read all those edgy blog posts. In one way, it was definitely healthy. It gave my faith a much-needed injection of personality and intimacy. However, to me, that injection came with the unfortunate implication that traditions, rituals, ceremonies, and the like were strictly barriers to a healthy faith, not aids. So I decided that if I was going to pray, read my Bible, or go to church, it would only be when I felt the desire to do so. As a result, I just stopped reading the Bible, praying, or going to church. I never really felt the serious desire to do any of those things, and if I did, I chalked it up to a feeling of guilt or obligation, and I didn’t follow through. My faith quickly declined. I was no longer in love with God. For a little while, I didn’t even believe in him.

Eventually, however, God brought me back. I can’t explain it, but one night, I started to feel the need to pray again. I did not feel the desire to pray; I felt the NEED to pray. So I did. I prayed. I read my Bible. I dove into church life with a vengeance. It was at this point that I understood the real value of tradition. A scheduled faith, with repetition and a focus on consistency, is not supposed to govern how we approach God. You can (and probably should) experience God outside of church and regularly scheduled devotion time. The point is that we live in a busy, changing world. The stresses, inconsistencies, and time constraints of this fallen world come between us and our King. There’s a saying, “If you love someone, you will make time for them.” In a world where there are so many earthly concerns to pursue, it can be easy to let God be pushed to the wayside. This is where traditions, when performed well, come into play. They carve out a consistent, comfortable niche in which we can escape from our daily concerns for a moment, focusing all of our attention on the divine, letting the world around us go for a brief time.

As a Baptist, my church background is not as filled with traditions and ceremonies as, say, a Roman Catholic or an Episcopalian. What traditions I have experienced are hardly complex. For me, tradition is simply showing up to church at 10:00 AM, taking communion once a month with oyster crackers and grape juice (as opposed to wine, one of the more disappointing Evangelical/Baptist traditions), and going to men’s breakfast every other Tuesday, at 6:00 AM. These traditions are incredibly mundane and simple, but they serve an important purpose. They are sacred spaces, so to speak. They are places in time that exist solely to allow me to worship, receive spiritual edification and instructions, enjoy fellowship with other believers, etc. My work and personal schedules are structured around these sacred spaces. When I’m having a rough week, I can look forward to these “rituals”, if you could call them that, knowing that I will enjoy them and find relief from the pains of everyday life.

Traditions are not walls meant to control when and how we are allowed to experience God, but ways to ensure we have consistent times and methods to experience God. Humans are creatures of habit. We find comfort and security in routine. A faith structured with rituals, ceremonies, and traditions of all sorts can be deeply personal, dynamic, and complex. I know mine is. 

Mondays with Marilynne: The Capacity for Imaginative Love

“I am persuaded for the moment that this is in fact the basis of community. I would say, for the moment, that community, at least community larger than the immediate family, consists very largely of imaginative love for people we do not know or whom we know very slightly. This thesis may be influenced by the fact that I have spent literal years of my life lovingly absorbed in the thoughts and perceptions of--who knows it better than I?--people who do not exist. And, just as writers are engrossed in the making of them, readers are profoundly moved and also influenced by the nonexistent, that great clan whose numbers increase prodigiously with every publishing season. I think fiction may be, whatever else, an exercise in the capacity for imaginative love, or sympathy, or identification.” --Marilynne Robinson, “Imagination and Community,” When I Was a Child I Read Books, 21.

When most of us think of fiction, we probably don’t think of God. Religious faith is a harrowing topic for the contemporary novelist precisely because we find so much God-language coopted by lazy or unscrupulous writers looking for a fast track to somber tone or a niche audience with a big hankering for kitsch. This contemporary reticence to speak of matters of the soul once led The New Yorker’s James Wood to describe Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead as “one of the most unconventional conventionally popular novels of recent times.” (Last October, she also gained the distinction of becoming the only author who ever kept this blogger up literally all night with a new book release.)

Robinson, a devoted member and former lay preacher of the United Church of Christ, has never been shy about her Christian faith. “It’s too exhausting and demanding to write,” she told RNS’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “I would never write about anything I didn’t really want to write about…. Faith is one of the great structuring elements in civilization. It has fascinated the best minds of many centuries. If it happens to fascinate yours also, there is no reason to be afraid. Of what? A bad review?”

Robinson’s work certainly hasn’t garnered many of those. In 2005, she received the Pulitzer Prize for her second novel, Gilead. In 2012, she received the National Humanities Medal, and just last week, President Barack Obama used her words in his eulogy for the for the Honorable Reverend Clementa Pinckney.

For Robinson, the theological concept of the imago Dei is at the absolute center of both literary production and the civic life. “I believe very strongly that this world,” she once said in an interview with The American Conservative, “these billions of companions on earth that we know are God’s images, are to be loved, not only in their sins, but especially in all that is wonderful about them.” Reading her work has convinced me that the power of language is quite truthfully a sacramental power, making the presence of Christ, the Word made flesh, evident even in absence. I am not sure I believe all the claims bandied about that literary fiction makes us more empathetic (some of the very nastiest people I have ever met have held graduate degrees in literature), but I do believe, like President Obama, that Robinson’s writing has changed me for the better.

Over the next few months, this Groupthink series will introduce (or reintroduce) readers to her life and thought, her theological impact and influences, her social convictions, and her brilliant contribution to the life of the church. I hope, in the weeks to come, that I can pique each reader’s curiosity enough to pick up every one of Robinson’s books for herself. Along the way, we will engage critically with the work of theologians from John Calvin to James Cone to Fanny Howe. Ultimately, I hope every one of you will come to share my conviction that, in the words of John Ames, the narrator of Gilead, “It all means more than I can tell you. So you must not judge what I know by what I can find words for.”

Fifth Sunday After Pentecost

Today, we join in the prayer that Pope Francis offers on behalf of all Christians at the end of Laudato si':

Father, we praise you with all your creatures. They came forth from your all-powerful hand; they are yours, filled with your presence and your tender love. Praise be to you!

Son of God, Jesus,through you all things were made.You were formed in the womb of Mary our Mother,you became part of this earth,and you gazed upon this world with human eyes. Today you are alive in every creaturein your risen glory.Praise be to you!

Holy Spirit, by your light you guide this world towards the Father’s love and accompany creation as it groans in travail. You also dwell in our hearts and you inspire us to do what is good.Praise be to you!

Triune Lord, wondrous community of infinite love,teach us to contemplate you in the beauty of the universe,for all things speak of you. Awaken our praise and thankfulness for every being that you have made. Give us the grace to feel profoundly joined to everything that is.

God of love, show us our place in this world as channels of your love for all the creatures of this earth,for not one of them is forgotten in your sight. Enlighten those who possess power and money that they may avoid the sin of indifference,that they may love the common good, advance the weak, and care for this world in which we live. The poor and the earth are crying out. O Lord, seize us with your power and light, help us to protect all life,to prepare for a better future,for the coming of your Kingdom of justice, peace, love and beauty. Praise be to you! Amen.

Economics, Politics, Morality and Creation: A Response to Taylor's Review

Jeb Bush responded to the Pope’s Encyclical at a town hall meeting after it was released. He said, “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or from my pope. I think religion ought to be about making us better as people, and not about getting into the political realm.” Rick Santorum did Jeb one better and said that he was more qualified to make a judgement on climate change than His Holiness. Greg Gutfeld, a talking head for the show ‘Fox and Friends,’ said that Pope Francis was a malthusian and had a “Marxist background.”

Needless to say, the political reaction from the right is unsurprising. Conservatives worldwide have consistently been skeptical of climate change. In fact, less than half of Republican Roman Catholics in the U.S. believe in human cause climate change; that, compared to 80% of Democrat Catholics that do. As Taylor pointed out, the encyclical was long, and we don't usually think about morality in terms of changing how we use technology. By the way, its obvious that Mr. Gutfeld did not even take the time to read the Encyclical, since the Pope specifically denounces any view that argues populations controls need to be put in place to solve the problem, something Malthus would never say--hopefully Mr. Gutfeld takes Taylor's advice to read the Encyclical for himself. 

It’s hardly surprising that the Encyclical, which is largely a message of unity which calls into question ecological practices that hurt the poorest among us, would divide politics. The energy sector provided over $69 billion last year in campaign contribution to GOP candidates. In Poland, where coal is a primary industry, conservatives are lashing out, worried that cutting off coal could upset their economy and political position. In retaliation, they are telling the Pope to stay out of politics, science, and economics, and stay in the realm of morality.

However, that is exactly what Pope Francis is doing. In the Encyclical, he says, “It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage.” In his theology we are called to be caretakers of the creation we are apart, but our current economic and political epistemology sets us above nature, and so we dominate it rather than nurture it. In fact, the topic of poverty is inseparable from politics and economics!

Indeed, world politics has been consumed with self-interest, and we do desperately need the cultural revolution Pope Francis calls for in his Encyclical. It is easy to see how shallow the morality politics of the modern right in the U.S. have become when they denounce a biblical ecology that is foundational to any theology. As Calvin remarked, “Wherever you look, there is no part of the world however small that does not show some glimmer of beauty…The superb structure of the world acts as a sort of mirror in which we may see God.”

As Taylor beautifully illustrates, the problem is not with coal or oil, it is with our humanity.  So no, Mr. Bush, when economics is the cause of suffering for creation, the Pope’s call is about making us all better stewards.

To Till Her and Keep Her: In Laud of Laudato si'

"Of course I'm gunna to kill a deer this season; God told us to rule over the earth, and that's what I'm doin'." Living in a rural Midwestern setting it is not unusual to hear statements similar to this one whether it is currently a particular hunting season or not. People have come to understand our relation to Creation not as a divinely appointed "care taker" of sorts, but as the "divinely" appointed plantation owner, with all the implications of misuse, misunderstanding, and misplaced theology intended. This idea of God's imperatives in Genesis 1 as totalitarian lordship is currently the view of the general populous, and the church, even in Her goodness, has sadly led the world in this direction. 

However, in his groundbreaking Encyclical Laudato si', Pope Francis brings to light the true imperative of the Old Testament, New Testament, and humanity at large. Also, in a slightly less known arena, Groupthink's own Taylor Qualls wrote a piece in response to the Pope's work in praise of Francis' call to ecological, social, and economic repentance. I find myself in humbled by their words, but encouraged by their call to recognize "Nothing in this world is indifferent to us," which is why I would like to look at two Old Testament passages that speak on this issue.

Whether one believes the narrative of creation found in Genesis 1-2 as "factual" in the most literal sense or not, the truth of our relation to the created order of things is pervasive in the first two chapters of the book. It would seem by reading Gen. 1:1-3 that God has seen the chaos of "the formless void" and the "darkness" that is covering "the face of the deep" and has set out to restore it. Many believers find it more comforting to have a God that creates His own matter to begin the universe, but I find it much more comforting to know that our God saw what was and brought it into completion, restoring what was into something better. 

It is in this example of of the Lord's exercise of power that we start to see what it means to be creative beings made in His image. We are called to have dominion over the creation as God had dominion over the chaos: Bringing it to a point of goodness through our involvement in it. I feel that Pope Francis is saying something similar in his remark "...Our human ability to transform reality most proceed in line with God's original gift of all that is." Along the lines of my prior statement and that of the Pope, I think this is furthered through seeing God's command to the man in 2:15 to till the earth and to watch over it.These words are not unique in the Hebrew Scpitures; 'abad (work/serve) appears almost 300 times and shamar (keep watch/preserve) appears over 450 times. In fact these aren't even fun words to syntax due to their simplicity! 

The implication is far greater though, as the same infinitive 'abad is used in v. 5 to explain why there were no plants yet. Man is made as a helper to God, to help tend to what God gives life to. We ought to recognize these truths (that we serve a restorative God whose image we are made in and that we are made from the earth for the sake of aiding the earth) in our everyday choices. Going to the store is not simply about price point as a member of humanity; it is instead an activity in preserving the earth. Gardening is not something meant to be done because it makes you "cool," but it is us fulfilling our duty to watch over our part in Creation.

Another integral place in the Old Testament we see our duty to Creation as care takers is in everyone's favorite devotional book, Leviticus. In the 25th chapter, the author speaks on times of holiness and rest in the Israelite community. As many people know these two times are the shmita (literally meaning "release") every seventh year, and the Jubilee every 50th year. In preparation for the sabbath year, we are told that the Israelite people are to be dependent on God for a bountiful harvest so as not to have to plant the next year. This also hints at God's idea of conservation: Creation is not to be used simply as a means to gain, but as a reminder to whom we are dependent upon. When speaking on these passages, Francis remarks, "This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings in nature," that we are to care for Creation well so that it can continue to show us God and care for us.

Since there are obviously entire books (yeah people, plural; very, very plural) on the topic of man's responsibility within Creation to Creation, and I feel as though I am at a sufficient stopping point, I would encourage you to do a few things. 

First, read the Pope's Encyclical. 

Second, pray about the repentance Taylor mentioned in his blog post. Third, pray over an investigation into some of what I have mentioned. 

Fourth (sorry, this is quite the homework list), check out some books by authors like Wendell Berry and Norman Wirzba. 

And lastly, if you do nothing else on this list, meditate on one of closing lines of the opening section of Laudato si': 

"If we approach nature and the environment without this openess to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their intimate need." 

Grace and Peace.

Rural Americans and Climate Change

Most rural Americans hold an intense appreciation for the natural world. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and related activities are popular and beloved pieces of our cultural heritage. Many children spend their summer days adventuring in the woods, building forts and only returning home for lunch and dinner. Farming is considered an honorable career choice. Because of this love for nature, most rural Americans have at least a rudimentary knowledge of ecology and conservation. You’re only supposed to hunt during specific times of the year. You should only kill a certain number of a certain type of animal. You shouldn’t throw trash in the local fishing hole. If you go camping, clean up after yourself. Many country folk, especially farmers, have an even more detailed understanding of their local ecosystems. In rural America, nature is an object of deep appreciation and respect. With this attitude towards nature, one would expect most rural Americans to enthusiastically support the Pope's message in his recent Encyclical on climate change.

Despite their intense love for nature, however, most rural folk are stereotyped as being fierce climate change deniers. Although this stereotype does not hold true for all rural Americas, it is grounded in reality. A great many people in America’s rural areas deny climate change, or at least anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change. What accounts for this seeming contradiction? One reason is political. Quite simply, climate change is strongly associated with liberal politics. As absurd as it may be to politicize science, climate change is, for better or for worse, strongly connected to political liberalism. Former Democratic politician Al Gore was one of the most famous and powerful voices regarding climate change in the 2000's. Recently, United States President Barack Obama called climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made climate change a central issue in his political platform. Numerous other liberal voices, both within the government and the media, have endorsed action to counteract climate change.

Conversely, conservatives have been more skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Unlike the Democratic Party platform, the Republican Party platform avoids any grave pronouncements about climate change. The platform advocates “responsibility” and “common-sense” reactions to environmental issues, but avoids mentioning the causes or severity of climate change. Many conservatives use stronger words. Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins flat-out calls climate change a “hoax”. When asked about man-made climate change, Republican politician Rick Perry said, “I’m not afraid to say I’m a skeptic about that.” Unlike liberals, conservatives do not seem particularly united on the issue of climate change, but there is general skepticism of climate change among conservatives. This politicization of climate change is relevant because rural America is significantly more conservative than liberal. Political debates in America tend to be rather heated, and this has put climate change in the unfortunate position of being a fiercely debated political topic, rather than a purely scientific issue to be studied and investigated. Because rural Americans are more likely to be conservative than liberal, this contributes to skepticism of climate change in rural areas.

According to NASA, “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” This statement, unfortunately, loses some of its impact in rural America. It’s not because country people are anti-science per se; the relationship between rural Americans and the scientific community is a bit more complicated than that. Evangelical Christianity is quite popular in rural regions of America, particularly in the South and parts of the Midwest. Unfortunately, the relationship between the scientific community and Evangelical Christians is often tense, if not outright hostile. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is definitively Evangelical, and they fiercely deny the theory of evolution, despite scientific consensus in favor of the theory. (Keep in mind there is a distinction between belief in evolution and an atheistic worldview, and not all Evangelicals reject evolution.) This conflict between Evangelicals and scientists continues to this day, and runs over into the climate change debate. Evangelical Christians are far less likely than most Americans to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I believe this can be chalked up to the (unnecessary) conflict between Evangelicals and the scientific community. There is a disturbing trend in Evangelical Christianity towards the belief that there is an inherent conflict between science and faith. This leads Evangelicals, who make up a large chunk of America’s rural population, to reject not only evolution, but climate change as well.

To understand rural attitudes towards climate change, there are several things to be aware of. Rural America is very politically conservative, and rural Americans generally associate climate change with liberal politics. Whether or not this association is fair or accurate is irrelevant; climate change is seen as a major liberal talking point. As a result, many rural Americans deny climate change, seeing it as more of a political issue than a scientific issue. Also, Evangelical Christianity is a major cultural influence in rural America. Because Evangelicals have a rocky relationship with the scientific community, many rural Americans are skeptical of scientific conclusions and theories, especially those that challenge their faith. Rural Americans are less likely than other Americans to accept man-made climate change simply because they don’t trust the people telling them about it. Many rural Americans see climate change as a tool used by their ideological opponents to force a secular and/or liberal worldview. Perhaps Pope Francis can help change all of that. 

Pope Francis and Ecological Repentance: A Review of Laudato si'

I had no idea.

I mean, I knew there was a problem, don’t get me wrong, but to me environmental issues were primarily something to be debated. Over time I came to realize that it was good to recycle when possible, and energy efficient cars were good (primarily for my wallet, but they help the environment too), and I picked up the odd piece of litter, but I knew that the earth was really gonna be just fine. I mean, it always has, and there are all those laws being put into place and debates being held, surely that will turn things around.

So when I was asked to write a piece on the Pope’s Encyclical addressing environmental issues, I agreed, but I wasn’t really excited about it. (I was not familiar with the term “Encyclical” coming into this, so for those of you who are in that same boat it’s basically a letter from the Pope or a Bishop that’s meant to circulate throughout the Catholic Church, somewhere between the length of a long essay and a book) “The environment is important and all…but don’t you want me to write on the atonement or hell or something exciting like that?” I set about the task of reading the Pope’s encyclical with the intention of sparing whoever might read this from having to read the real thing (it’s just over 100 pages).

My goal started changing very quickly.

The writing isn’t stuffy or inaccessible, it doesn’t have an especially holy tone to it. I was finding myself thoroughly enjoying myself as I was reading it. The piece is informative, convicting, concerning, and encouraging all at once. I no longer want to distill it down into 1000 words so you don’t have to read it, I want to tell you to read it. Do yourself and the world a favor and read it.

I honestly didn’t understand what the current environmental situation is. Pope Francis presents the best of science to demonstrate that while things are by no means hopeless, things are far bleaker than I had thought. We have to do something different. We have to repent.

That’s an interesting thought isn’t it?

When we talk about repenting in the church we usually think about lying or looking at pornography. We don’t usually think about needing to repent of the way we treat the earth. But according to Pope Francis, if we don’t change we are going to destroy our home. Isn’t that what repentance is? Changing our minds about something. Doing something different.

What does that repentance look like? This is where I especially appreciated Pope Francis’ perspective. I’ve heard plenty of debates over what technology does or doesn’t hurt the environment and what new regulations will really make a difference, but Francis rejects regulation and technology as the way forward (though he does not reject them as an aid). The problem is not primarily with our technology but with our humanity, or rather our lack of it. We have treated our home as if we own it, as if we can do whatever we want to it. We’ve cut down forests, polluted our air and waters in the name of the dollar. We’ve raped the earth in the name of profit.

Our greed, our carelessness and waste and our selfishness are destroying the planet. We all contribute to this, from when I choose to throw out my paper rather than recycling it; to the major corporation that destroys an entire ecosystem to lower its overhead costs. When we neglect and harm the earth, whether in big or small ways, we sin against our home, ourselves, and our Creator.

The reality is that taking care of the earth is an incredibly human thing to do. When we care for the earth rather than destroying it, we are living out our humanity more fully.  Caring for the environment is truly humanitarian in nature. This is because those who are most harshly affected by the damage done to the earth are almost always the poor and disenfranchised, the least of these that are so important to Jesus, those that we are commanded to care for.

How is this true? Let’s take for example the polluting of our oceans. This has adversely affected the fishing industry in major nations due to the fact that it’s killing off the fish. Among the affluent some may take a serious hit on profits or even lose their jobs, but most will ultimately recover. In small villages where fishing provides the only means of work for the majority of people already living in poverty, this is a devastating blow that many will never recover from. The task of caring for the earth is also the task of caring for humanity.

It is not enough however to simply care for the earth as if it were a resource to be exploited. The earth is a gift, something precious and beautiful in its own right. Pope Francis identifies with St. Francis of Assisi when he identified the animals as brothers and sisters. This wasn’t simply an overly romantic view of the world, it was a way of life for St. Francis. He treated nature with respect and dignity thanking sister sun for the light that it gives and brother pig for providing us with meat. The earth is not ours to be exploited, but ours to tend to and care for as we use the blessings that it gives us. If we cannot change our minds here, we will never move past our own greed.

So, what is the way forward? Repent. Change. Do something different. Start by reading Pope Francis’ encyclical (you can read it for free here). Read the rest of this series this week on Groupthink. Find ways to make changes in your life, not just to plant a tree (though that is good) but to free yourself from the bonds of greed and consumerism.

“Replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which “entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God’s world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion.” --Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew 

A Series On Technology, Culture, and Faith - Introduction

Hi. My name’s Joe. I’m an addict, and it’s been 10 minutes since my last fix.

“True wisdom, as the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons, is not acquired by a mere accumulation of data which eventually leads to overload and confusion, a sort of mental pollution. Real relationships with others, with all the challenges they entail, now tend to be replaced by a type of internet communication which enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature. Today’s media do enable us to communicate and to share our knowledge and affections. Yet at times they also shield us from direct contact with the pain, the fears and the joys of others and the complexity of their personal experiences.” – Pope Francis in his Encyclical, Laudato si’

“Silence precedes, undergirds, and grounds everything. We cannot just see it as an accident, or as something unnecessary. But unless we learn how to live there, go there, abide in this different phenomenon, the rest of things – words, events, relationships, identities – all become rather superficial, without depth or context. They lose meaning. All we search for is a life of more events, more situations which have to increasingly contain even higher stimulation, more excitement, and more color, to add vital signs to our inherently bored and boring existence.” – Richard Rohr in Silent Compassion

“Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms” – Motto of the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair

If you’ve read the passages above, I assume you’ve gathered what we’re talking about by now. I know you’ve been through all this before. Culture sucks, technology is evil, et cetera, et cetera. You’ve seen the Facebook posts questioning the role of social media in our lives. You’ve seen the YouTube videos telling you to put down your phone and talk to people. You’ve seen the articles and blog posts talking about our culture and its need for constant stimulation. We’ve all been there done that. Maybe you did wind up putting your phone in your pocket. Perhaps you took that social media fast your friends were all doing. You may have even left your business or place of residence to talk an unexpected walk, pleasantly invigorated by the world around you. “Man, this is good,” you think.

Your phone rings. You get a text. You have an appointment. You walk back to work. Your fast ends. Whatever the reason, you’re back in. To be fair, you’ve probably changed something. For a while, I bet you don’t spend nearly as much time on Facebook or Twitter. Netflix might not see your face for a week or two, and you may even go as far as only using your phone as the ancient contraption it’s named after. This is all well and good, but has anything really changed? Has your heart changed at all? What about your thinking on technology (and I mean what you really think, not the kind that you tell your friends about and forget in a week)? Did you really get a glimpse of what a life without technological stimulation was like? If we’re being honest, probably not. In this day and age, it’d be nearly impossible. But as good old Walt Disney said, “it’s kinda fun to do the impossible.”

So let me tell you what this isn't going to look like. I’m not going to try and guilt trip you. I won’t call you names, make judgments about you, or anything else of that matter. I’m not going to talk to you like I have answers, because I don’t. I’m not going to throw science at you to try and impress or overwhelm you, although small amounts of science might be involved from time to time. I’m also not going to bury you in quotes (my apologies for above), philosophies, or theological ideas nobody really cares about. I want this to be helpful. I hope there can be change. I am going to ask questions that need to be asked, trying to get you to think about what you’re doing. I want to find and address the source, not the symptoms. I want this to be accessible, readable, enjoyable, and maybe even a little edible.

Because I’m nobody special. I don’t have any special right or paper saying I get to say this stuff to you. I’m just as immersed in this culture as you are, and perhaps even more. I check social media forty to fifty times a day, more when I post or share something. I run to my phone when there’s a lull in conversation or the passing of time. I run to my phone even faster when I’m uncomfortable or stressed. My friends have had to hold near-interventions to get me to get off my phone and engage with them. I stare at my phone for an hour in bed before I sleep and I have no idea why. Technology is my crutch I use to avoid dealing with small problems. Technological stimulation is my drug, too.

Hi. My name is Joe. I’m an addict, and it’s been 0 minutes since my last fix.

Welcome to Groupthink!

This is a theology blog. The blog’s primary purpose is to examine current theological questions and issues in a kind and engaging manner. We are committed to a mission of spiritual exploration! A mission to challenge each other’s beliefs in a loving environment free of judgment and shame. We want to create an atmosphere where we can all believe differently, yet be challenged to think in new and exciting ways about what it means to know God.

A person’s worldview directly effects how he or she will see the entire world. It colors every experience. We understand that theological issues need to be addressed from different angles and different biases. All members within this group share a belief in God and are professed Christians. Our members come from many denominations and hold a variety of theological views, and yet we remain unified. It is precisely because we agree on so many issues, that we feel the need to discuss, improve, stretch and contrast our mutual theological beliefs through this blog. This is why our name is Groupthink. We understand that we are a group of like-minded individuals, yet we hope to emerge from this with a deeper understanding of our own views of who God is. We hope that through our unity we will create a powerful diversity which strengthens our shared belief in God and commitment to love our neighbors.

In our tagline we describe ourselves as “A theology blogging collective” We hope to act as a working collective which still promotes and rejoices in our differences. We are united in Christ and we hope to share this love with all those who read this blog. Don’t be afraid to think new and unique thoughts about God! Please join us on this adventure as we explore who God is in this life. Our first primary post will be focused on Pope Francis’ new Encyclical entitled Laudato si’, which is focused on the environment. After this we will have some response essays and from time to time our writers will post a thought-provoking standalone articles from their own unique theological fields.  Enjoy and don’t be afraid to share your thoughts in the comments!