Phil Towne

The Music Industry and The Church

Phil Towne — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:33:15 -0800

Derek Webb posted a blog today about the music industry and giving music away for free. He maintains that the relationships build over the long term by giving music away for free is actually much more profitable than music services such as Spotify (or even iTunes). His blog was very thoughtful and caused me to think through the way the music industry has functioned.

Webb tells a story of a young Johnny Cash nearly being disallowed entry into a studio to record. He made it in only by playing something "worth the legacy of the historical room." Webb goes on to define the ways in which the music industry has changed from focusing on the huge money making artists to being undermined in the last few years. He claims that the gatekeepers are no longer standing at the door, but new communication technologies brought about by the internet can connect artist with fan, as well as produce music relatively cheaply and easily.

As a musician, one who is certainly far from professional, I enjoy the ease of making music on my home computer, and distributing it for free through a variety of music distribution sites. As an aspiring media scholar and theologian, I can't help but notice the parallel's between the music industry and the religious industry (he says, tongue in cheek).

As I have said before, the gatekeepers within religions are holding tight to their control, as the music industry has attempted to do. The huge artists are prized for their performance, and yet the smaller voices are now capable of being heard. (In some cases this may not be a good thing, such as this guy.) As these new and different voices are heard, will this cause a fracturing of the ecosystem of our church culture or can this lead to new and creative expressions of what the church can be?

It remains to be seen how all this will shake down to the average congregation, but I can't help but see that changes are coming. At any rate, just a couple quick thoughts after reading Derek Webb's blog. I encourage you to read it, it is thought provoking. Do you see the parallels I am making?

How to do Church Online

Phil Towne — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:03:34 -0800

This morning, I came across a website promoting how to do internet church.

Here is the link: ichurchmethod.com

The iChurch method contains the following five essential methodologies:

Part 1: Website – A Great Website that is Easy-to-Use.
Part 2: Multimedia – Interactive Multimedia.
Part 3: Ecommerce – Online Stores/Online Donations.
Part 4: Social Media – Engage and Connect.
Part 5: Mobile – The Future of Technology and Ministry.

"With these five parts, a ministry can reach and change the world."

More and more literature is now being produced that attempts to capitalize on our digital culture. Internet churches have now been doing their thing for approximately 10 years, and the methodology is apparently solidified. But this sort of methodology is very interesting to me as it takes modernistic assumptions of old and attempts to apply them to our constantly changing culture.

The underlying assumption is that if using the correct methodology, your ministry "can reach and change the world." Really? So simply by buying and following the five simple steps of this book, my ministry can grow to a self-sustaining, world changing ministry?

Within this assumption about methodological claims, there is burried a deeper assumption. This assumption is that the new medium of technology can adequately communicate what traditional churches have communicated, simply by translating their content onto an online format.

The chief problem I see with this assumption is that much of the online content and form is essentially built around interactivity and participation. However, many of the churches that distribute their content this way do so with a culture of heirarchy. I wonder how long it will work to simply do the same thing in a new medium before this approach collapses in upon itself?

Or, if I am wrong in the above statement, perhaps the world of the internet will become another way to build upon the heirarchy that often exists in church culture, thus re-inforcing the view of the church as chief gatekeeper of all things spiritually Christian. But, if this happens while the rest of the non-church world continues down the current trend of participatory culture, will the church irrelevate itself to all but those currently already insiders in the system?

Anyway, just a few thoughts and questions brought upon by this website/book. Any thoughts?

Thinking about some of my thinking

Phil Towne — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:26:08 -0700

It has been a while since I have blogged. My creativity in this realm seems to go in spurts, and so does my busyness elsewhere in life.

There are a lot of things going on these days, and a lot to think about. Sometimes taking time out to simply think about things seems a luxury. Lately, I have been thinking about a few things, that I will list rather in random order, and perhaps will think more on them later.

1) Power: I have lately been noticing that there is much power to be had in this world. I have also been noticing for perhaps the first time how much power I in fact have. I have privilege and power (or authority) that many in the world simply do not have. Even many in our own country.

For example, when is the last time I got pulled over and asked for my documents? Well, actually that has never happened. Why? Because I am a white male living in a predominately white nation. So, I simply don't have to think about things like what a privilege it is not to be inconvenienced by something of this nature. Also, I am not the subject of racism, or at least not directly. This is another thing I simply don't have to deal with.

Aside from this, I find it fascinating how we idealize people who are successful in both politics and church thinking that somehow they are successful simply because they have power. But who or what is to really define their success?

2) 99%: I am very interested to watch what occurs with this 99% thing. I know there are both very big critics and very strong supporters of this movement. I am very interested to see what happens with it. At the very least, I hope that people will be awakened to think about the sorts of financial issues and questions that this brings up. There is a part of me that enjoys the subversive nature of these sorts of things, whether I agree with them or not. I firmly believe that we must be shaken up from time to time.

3) Polarization: I guess these things do have somewhat of a theme, but I am struck lately by the complete polarization of our political system. I don't understand why this is, especially because it seems like they both operate in the same way, clamoring for power. I am actually meeting with one of my colleagues next week who teaches political science to try to get a better understanding on the state of politics right now.

4) Busyness: People, including myself, are so dang busy that it is very easy for us to neglect relationships. And what does this busyness serve?

Anyway, perhaps this blog is more a random reflection of my mind at this moment than putting forth of some profound thoughts. Perhaps some of it resonates or you have thoughts...

Phil

Surveillance Society Reversal

Phil Towne — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:09:39 -0700

I saw an interesting article in Wired this morning from Clive Thompson, called "on Establishing Rules in the Videocam Age".

In this article, he talks about the new always on "sousveillance" culture. He talks about the way in which this always on video culture can be reversed from a culture of surveillance to one where people are instead turning their cameras back around to look at those in power.

This particular development seems to mirror one of McLuhan's famous sayings in the Tetrad. McLuhan once laid claim that all new forms of media must be asked four questions. These four questions make up what he called the four laws of media. They are:

"What does the medium enhance?"

"What does the medium make obsolete?"

"What does the medium retrieve (that has been obsolesced earlier)?"

"What does the medium reverse (when pushed to extremes)?"

When I read the above linked article, I began to think about this last question. The medium that was once feared to provide authorities with too much insight into our lives and brought about privacy concerns is now being reversed into something used against these same authorities. This is a fascinating re-distribution of power that is occuring due to the rise in easily distributed digital content.

As I talked about in my last blog, I believe there to be a massive shift underway in the way we see authority and power. While these power structures remain currently, and will not disappear overnight, there are developments being made, "reversals" if you will that are beginning to push back in areas that have long been captive to those in authority.

I have mixed feelings about this. One side of me likes safety and control, and values order. This part gets a bit nervous about the chaos that re-distribution could bring about. The other side of me likes the punk rock/hacker nature of all of this, and is excited to see how this continues to develop in the coming years.

Anyway, just a few thoughts after some morning reading.

The Future of Church and the Full-Time Pastor

Phil Towne — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:57:08 -0700

I read an interesting blog today, written a couple weeks ago here on the homebrewedchristianity.comblog on the future of the church. I have been thinking and talking to a number of people about this topic a lot lately.

The author of this blog (Deacon Bo) concludes that within the next 50 years there will be a 50% decline in Christians in North America. Obviously this is speculative, but the reasons he lays out are:

• The majority of our church structures are carry over from a Christendom paradigm, combined with a lack of self awareness of this fact.

• Many Baby Boomers are retiring, and so no longer funding ministries.

• The Internet (making resources and connection freely available).

• The Browning of America (which has previously been mostly White dominated).

• Internal fighting amongst Christians.

• Dissappointment from unfulfilled rapture expectations.

Please read his blog to get a further explanation of these reasons, but I find a couple of them especially compelling for a conviction of mine that has been taking shape for a little while now. My conviction is that in the fairly near future (I would suspect in about 15-20 years) there will be far fewer full-time paid pastors. Some of the reasons he lists above are the same things I have been speculating about.

First, I believe that the Christendom model of purely top-down leadership is being questioned and by some dis-regarded. Many simply do not accept pastors as authorities any longer. They question why they should listen to a "sage on the stage" type of personality when they have a combination of friends who speak into their lives and google that can give them the information they desire much quicker. One can argue whether these sources are adequate, but at least anecdotally, I have certainly found this to be the case.

Second, as Bo mentioned on his blog, Baby Boomers are retiring, and there is a drastic reduction of young people in most churches. I imagine 15 years down the road the funding for ministry projects being far less, because the current generation of young adults is either not in church, or has a different perception of what church is and how the church should be spending their money. I know personally, I am not in favor of giving money purely to a local American church to help fund the ministry it does when there are seven other churches down the street. I would much rather send my money overseas to help either missionaries in other countries, or just helping people get food or fresh water.

Finally, the Internet. This is an area of particular interest to me, but I speculate that in the future, authority and powerful leadership will continue to be questioned and alternative authorities sought out. The default authority of pastors (and educators as well) will no longer be accepted, but instead will be challenged.

The other reasons Bo goes into may also figure into this equation, but I haven't thought about them much yet. I do think the infighting he mentions is a huge deal. There seems to be a modern neo-fundamentalism arising in some folks who are unwilling to accept or entertain any view other than their own. Some of them also tend to be very abrasive. The internet also plays into this factor, as it is easy for people to bash others anonymously and unintelligently with no backlash or recourse.

At any rate, all of this adds up to a feeling (or I would even call it a conviction) as to how we should posture ourselves as church leaders and as people educating future church leaders. Can I in good conscience teach future pastors without telling them that they may have to get another job while being a pastor? Should we as Christian Colleges and Universities be helping people become bi-vocational? What about those already in ministry? Do we hope they can all ride out their chosen careers or do we help re-train them? What role does the local church body play in all of this?

At any rate, what do you think? Do you see the number of Christians declining in the future? What about paid pastors?

I would love to hear your responses. I will likely follow this up at some point with some more thoughts as they develop. This is a very important topic for us to think through.

Francis Chan engages the Hell Question

Phil Towne — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:06:23 -0700

This video is from YouTube and is a preview video of Chan's new book about hell.

It should be very interesting to see how he enters into the current discussion and debate.

One can't help but notice a similarity in how this is being released (with a vague intro video) to Rob Bell's recent book. He seems to be addressing Bell in some of this, but only time will tell. I am sure this will ignite a whole other round of discussion prior to the book in the same way as well.

At any rate, I just thought I would post it, since many are probably interested in this discussion.

Phil

Public is the New Private

Phil Towne — Tue, 17 May 2011 08:42:31 -0700

Re-entering my PhD program has caused me to think much about technology. Two years ago, when I stopped my program, technology and Web 2.0 were at one place. They have obviously continued to develop rapidly, and are now quite different than they were.

Issues of privacy are no longer as important or highlighted as they once were. Below are two videos put out on youtube that illustrate the tension between public and private. The first video is a humorous (yet poignant) looks at what happens when information that we readily display on facebook is asked of people in person.

The second video is called, "Public is the New Private" and is in a more journalistic style illustrating the trend brought about by facebook and google to have much of our information public. The last section is the most interesting to me as they theorize what will happen in the future with our public and private information.

How comfortable are we in revealing our identities online? Does this trend allow us more transparency and authenticity or are there privacy concerns that should arise? Is this wise of us to reveal our every move online?

How many of us have intentionally created alternate accounts on Facebook to protect our own privacy? I have not yet, but know of several who have taken this approach.

What implications will this have for churches and religious groups?

I'm not sure I have come to any answers yet, but I am fascinated by the questions...

Any thoughts?

Phil

Stuffed Animal Baby - Ruckus in the Barn

Phil Towne — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:21:08 -0700

Life is Inherently Tragic

Phil Towne — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:48:54 -0700

A professor I once had used to say “life is inherently tragic.” He would go on to explain how death is a part of life, and without one, we cannot have another. Death gives birth to new life. Life gives birth to something that will one day die.

In life, we certainly have our fair share of tragedy. Both of my own parents died before I was 30. I have no siblings, and in some ways have had to forge my own way through life.

We have a friend of ours living with us currently who is a recent widow. One year ago yesterday her dear husband of over 30 years was taken by the horrible disease of cancer. She has gone through some real and undiluted pain over the last few years, and is now in a process of recovery.

A child gets killed in an accident, or worse, on purpose. Death, disease, hunger, and struggle appear all around us. We nearly become numb to this pain.

And one of the worst parts about it all, is that in the midst of the chaos and pain of life’s tragedies, it often feels as if we are surrounded by people who just don’t get it. They haven’t walked the same path, they haven’t experienced the same pain. They say stupid things that hurt deeply, and sometimes it feels as if their “words of encouragement” turn to us comforting them instead of the opposite.

I don’t understand all of the bad, but no more do I understand how all of the good that happens in our world can actually happen in spite of the bad.

We are temporary travelers on the road of life. There is more, much more to life than that we see. We are wanderers, seeking our way, part of a history and future that we neither created nor can control. Yet we are held in God’s hands, the hands that hold the entire world, see a larger perspective, and know what is really going on.

The pain we feel allows us to see the joy that we feel.

We will miss those we lost, and we will hurt still more when others are lost in the future. But by and through this pain that we feel, there is a richness to life that I wouldn’t want to miss. Somehow the depth of the feelings of pain and despair enlighten us to the “more” that is present in life besides simply existing.

(The attached pictures are of a man I saw at the cemetery yesterday. A man whose hunched and tired body looked so downcast as he sat by the grave of presumably his wife.)

The Changing Nature of Communication

Phil Towne — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:53:21 -0700

“In a world where publishing is effortless, the decision to publish something isn’t terribly momentous.”

In the academic world, when publishing something, one must correctly cite sources, doing thorough research, proofread carefully, edit, proofread again, wordsmith some more, and then finally publish. There may even be some more editing and proofreading and editing in that process.

In contrast, in the blogging world, one must publish quickly, often, and still write with a fair amount of wisdom and yet brevity, to keep people interested. I often times struggle with the tension of wanting to put out a blog more frequently, and getting ideas a bit more solidified in my head prior to doing so. (You may notice this in the infrequency of my posts).

In the late 1400’s when the printing press was gaining momentum and beginning to change the nature of mass communication, scribes still existed alongside those who ran the printing presses.

Interestingly, the job of the Scribe (that of copying a book) began to gradually be undermined through this new medium of print. However, there were those who wanted to hold fast to the tradition of the scribes. One such man, the Abbot of Sponheim even penned a book claiming four distinct advantages and virtues of the scribal tradition claiming: “The devout monk enjoys four particular benefits from writing: the time that is precious is profitably spent; his understanding is enlightened as he writes; his heart within is kindled to devotion; and after this life he is rewarded with a unique prize.”

Ironically, in the day and age he wrote, the best way to get his message spread around was through the printing press, so that is what he did. Counter to his own thesis he did not employ the use of the scribes in order to get his message out to the masses. In the end, did the medium of his publishing undermine the message that he believed and wrote?

In our current day and age, things are changing. The dramatic alteration of mass communication in the age of technology and the internet is changing the way we think, act, and communicate. In a similar way in which the printing press altered the way of life of a scribe, and in the end outmoded the profession, the internet is rapidly tearing down the gatekeepers of information. This is not to say that those who for the most part control mass media now will not be around for a while, but the nature of their authority and the way in which many collect information is deteriorating their role as sole authority.

I have to wonder how this spreading out and leveling of the playing field will affect both the world and the church. I can’t help but believe that a major re-thinking of structures is taking place, and this will carry over to the religions of the world. What are the traditions that we hold tight to that may be outmoded in a few years? How are we reacting to this tension?

I am sure there will be more thoughts to come, but that is all for now.

Oh, and the above quotes come from Clay Shirky in his book “Here Comes Everybody” on page 68 and 79 (intentionally not cited in correct format).