June 14, 2013
I've long enjoyed (in some respects) the love-hate relationship with modern day electronic media. I have contact through Facebook with people I otherwise don't seem to hear from. And of course they hear from me when they otherwise probably wouldn't. It is convenient to say the least. And yet there is something of an arrogance about the thought that I would presume that people really want to hear (read) from me. If that was the case wouldn't there be a more purposeful effort to maintain that communication on both our behalf. It's easy for those who are geographically close to stay in touch to be sure. And FB-type forms of communication generally just enhance or continue the conversations. It can be both cathartic and encouraging.
And yet, in those instances where we are separated by perhaps time (old friends reconnected with through FB and other media) or geographic distance there seems to be a convenience factor I haven't quite been able to sort through. It's so much easier to write one note, post it to FB and let people check it at their own convenience. One could make the case that it is helpful in that regard. And yet, if our relationships are only convenient are they very deep?
Communication is essential between friends, associates, partners, etc. And the more convenient the better to be sure. But I wrestle with whether or not such convenient forms of communication are inappropriately presumptuous and enabling of dysfunctional patterns. I know many, perhaps even most of my American friends have sorted through this issue but it remains for me one of the mysteries of western culture that I still have not understood. When I write, I tend to write for a particular audience but I can never be sure, in the modern day IT world who is actually reading. I have a world map on my blogspot site that shows what countries are represented but with programs like "Tor" even that information can easily be deceiving.
Truth be told, when I post on FB it is purposeful, sometimes charged, sometimes asking for attention. But when I blog, it really is primarily for me. I need to write. I need to write to better understand the issues I face. If others find something there, glory hallelujah. If not, oh well. It wasn't written for them anyway...
... And yet, as the previous posts on hallead.blogspot.com site show I have long used a blog as a means of mission interpretation. But again I primarily write in order to better understand my own cultural, ecclesiological and theological confusion. If I have to interpret it, I'd better process it and hence I write a blog about it.
For now I am still lost, in a culture that used to be home, but after 10 years in mission has become and remains foreign. Even after almost 5 years back I still wonder, why I get an email expressing concerns that drove someone away but were never acknowledged until I asked about an absence for so long. I see people professing commitment which is only a commitment until something better comes along. I experience an inability to speak the truth, even in love, to others who consider any sort of correction, admonition, exhortation to be "judgmental." And I see an increasing apathy about the role of the church in church members' lives. This really is not the country I assumed it was...and so often the structural church of Jesus Christ is not the church I assumed it was.
I sometimes think missionaries understand better than anyone else how this world is not our home; how our ONLY citizenship is in heaven. Truth be told, I don't care as much about the USA or its government or its economy. I don't much care as much about any country or economy or denomination or community as those are not that which keeps me going. This world really is not my home. Rather, it is the love of my dear Savior. The only one and the only thing that matters. He alone determines my success and my eternal destiny. And to him I am indebted beyond words...
No comments:
Post a Comment