Defining (and Defending?) Cultural Relevance
I graduated from Winebrenner Theological Seminary in 1999. Over the past ten years, a cornerstone of my philosophy of ministry has been a high level of commitment to a church that embraces the notion of being "culturally relevant." This post is not my announcement that I now dismiss those notions as incorrect; but I will openly admit that I've embraced many ideas and approaches in the name of cultural relevance without first fully thinking through the decision.
From my vantage point, two principles are non-negotiable:
- Jesus commands us to share the message of his life, death, and resurrection (Mt. 28:18-20).
- Expanding upon that idea, Paul demonstrates how important it is to identify with those groups trying to be reached (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
Beyond these two imperatives, things begin to get dicey. Nowhere does Jesus say "Do whatever it takes to reach everyone"; nor does Paul write "become like a homosexaul to win the homosexuals..." So, it appears as though it is necessary to draw a line about what those actual limits are.
This conversation could go in a dozen different directions, but I'm going to focus on just one element of the equation: technology. For those who read the previous thread (The Role of Technology in the Church), you know this is something that I have multiple opions about. But I will try my best to simplify and clarify my concerns.
The metaphor that has been very helpful to me invokes the idea of environmental ecology (there is actually a field of study called "media ecology."). Imagine for a moment a virgin forest that has never encountered a specific form of termites. Once the invasive species is introduced, the forest is no longer the old forest plus the termites - it is an entirely new habitat. If you can see the analogy, that is all I am suggesting when I say I believe that technology is not morally neutral. Without trying to overstate my point, by its mere introduction new technologies alter our very form of existence. How can they therefore be "morally neutral"? If you genuinely believe that God created the computer, then maybe you can build a case, but if you believe that computer technology was created by man (using his God-given free-will), then my points remain part of the discussion.
So...when discussing cultural relevance, these are things I am not suggesting:
- that churches shouldn't use PowerPoint
- that churches shouldn't have websites
- that pastors shouldn't blog
But, what I am suggesting is that we too often embrace what's new without first asking what we are giving away as the trade-off. The minute we embrace something for no other reason than it exists we are surrendering ourselves to our cultural - that is definitely NOT being culturally relevant in a biblical sense.
Would Jesus Twitter? Would Paul have a blog? Before you quickly reply "Of course! How can you even ask those questions?" I would encourage you to seriously consider the questions further.
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 12:28 PM
29 Comments:
May I ask a question? What do you think the trade off is and what are we sacrificing in certain circumstances? You can use a made up example or a real life one.
I have already expressed my concerns about how poorly we use websites (consumerism), blogs (egoism), and social networks (more consumerism), but I feel these are correctable by a new approach. I am curious as to your thoughts.
Patrick,
Much of my thinking on this point is driven by the work of Marshall McLuhan. He has written about the notion that every new echnology created enhances some aspect of human communication; makes some other form of technology obsolete; allows some previously obsolte form of communication to return to the foreground; and becomes something entirely unpredictable when pushed to its limits. These four items (McLuhan's "Tetrad") can be explored in terms of many technologies.
Email:
Enhances - daily communication in work and family life; allows for on-going contact with those who would probably go unconnected
Obsolete - routine telephone calls or a quick face to face conversation
Retrieves - letter writing as a part of daily life (the form is different, but the idea is similar)
Pushed to limits - allows people to send messages that would have been better communicated using a more personal form of contact (relational break-ups, condolences for a death in the family, etc.)
[I can give more examples as well - but I'll stop there for now.]
Again, I am not anti-technology. But I think the problem runs deeper than just how we use a form of communication. Websites, blogs, and social networking, even when used appropriately (who gets to define that term is another conversation) have changed our very existence.
I guess I keep returning to that item because of your previous comment that you agree that technology is morally neutral. If I misunderstood or if you have reluctantly agreed that it is not morally neutral I will stop coming back to that point.
Thanks for the great ongoing conversation.
I'm joining this conversation with some trepidation. I'm a Luddite-wannabe. Why? Because I don't like what technology (i.e. the computer) has done to me and mine. Yes, yes, I'm typing on a computer right now, so automatically I'm a hypocrite. But I can see what effect this has had on my relationships and pastimes: each family member goes to his/her computer to do whatever instead of doing things together; we have few conversations about truly meaningful issues; I have a hard time concentrating; temptations are obviously much more available; and so on.
I have a very limited blog, and my church has a barely functional website (just a calendar of upcoming events), and we use PowerPoint (actually "EZ Worship," a name I detest). I don't have Twitter or a Facebook/MySpace account, but I do frequently e-mail friends and parishioners.
My computer is an EEE-PC so I can take work on the road, but I find that I'm too attached to it. Why do I feel so disconnected when it's not with me? Why is a cell phone so necessary today when it was a rare thing 15 years ago? Our culture HAS changed, and I'm not sure it's for the better.
When I travel abroad, I feel like warning my international friends not to travel down the high-tech road like the West has done. But I know it won't work; they want gadgets probably even more than we do. Cell phones in particular have revolutionized two-thirds world cultures, in that they are able to leap-frog right past all the land-line infrastructure and put up cell towers instead.
What bothers me the most is the nagging worry I have about how the church has become so dependent on electronics. Here's a question to pose to the Emergent community AND the Willow Creek Association: could you still worship as a church if the power were cut off? In our darkened theater style "sanctuaries" (I doubt this term is used by many), only the battery-powered emergency lights would be of any help. I fear that in some ways we have traded the power of the Holy Spirit for PowerPoint.
OK, I'm done with my diatribe. I used to think technology is morally neutral, but increasingly I believe that it's changing humanity in ways that increase our isolation from each other and from God. Are we turning into "A Brave New World"? Or worse, "The Matrix"?
Just wondering.
Toviah,
Welcome to the conversation.
I like that you chose "Brave New World" over "1984" as your picture of the present and future. Neil Postman (in a great book called "Amusing Ourselves to Death") suggests that we are more likely to go in the direction of Brave New World than Orwell's bleak 1984. Why? Because Orwell paints a picture of a totalitarian world where everyone must repress their desires and dreams. Huxley provides a picture of what could happen if we get everything we want (and more). Brave New World seems to be more connected to our time than 1984.
Anyhow...you ask a great question about the need for technology in our worship. At our church's worship service today they announced a new way to participate in worship. Anyone who has a specific type of cell phone can now immediately pull up (while sitting in the service) that Sunday's sermon scripture text and post Twitter messages in reply to the sermon - while the sermon is actually taking place. On one hand, it's amazing to see what is possible. But, on the other hand, it is deeply distressing.
Where is the line between doing what connects with our main population and the limits of technology? As we sang about only needing Jesus, all I could think of was adding the line "and my iPhone."
Like you, I am not anti-technology. But I am growing more and more concerned about where it is taking us.
Also, you bring up Willow Creek. As churches grow larger there is a certain inevitability about relying more heavily on technology. Our church worships around 1200 and I see the role of technology growing larger and larger. A church of 125 could worhsip much more simply without electricity than one of over 1000.
One last thought - a few days ago I saw a website that asked "What would Jesus Twitter?" After a few Google searches it alarmed me how few asked "Would Jesus Twitter?" Too many of my students ask "How can I use PowerPoint for this presentation?" without ever asking "Should I use PowerPoint?"
I'm likely the most emergent one here. Heck, I've been having meetings and conversations lately with members of the Emergent Village. I suspect we could survive quite well without the power.
I've never been a fan of powerpoint in services and I do not use it. I prefer the lyrics to the songs be written on sheets of paper. People hold something in their hands and since I do not print enough, they often have to share intimate space with the person next to them as opposed to an individual experience.
I remember the notes I used to take when I was in high school during sermon time. I used a blank sheet of paper and filled it with reflections and thoughts on the sermon. This whole fill in the blank of three points feels more like mad libs than it does note taking. Overall, I do not think most churches I have seen who incorporate powerpoint into their sunday worship service do a very good job using it to enhance the worship experience and lift up God and be a community that is engaged in the message. My goodness, what need does one have for a Bible when all the passages are up on a screen?
While I agree that technology has changes our infrastructure, I still see it as neutral, but I see the use of it by the church as thoughtless and ineffectual at best and detached from the Holy Spirit at worst.
We've recently had a different conversation at our church. After reading Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church, I incorporated one of Reggie's suggestions. Debriefing. After the sermon, I say, "Turn to someone near you and tell them one thing you got out of the sermon today." Or on the rare occasion like I did this Sunday, "Turn to someone and tell them the roadblock in your life and whether you are willing to move it or not."
My wife is a teacher and she came home from a training session taught by Forget (soft g in his name, and I only mention his name because he lives in Findlay, OH). He suggests starting each class with a few Agree/Disagree statements to which you then briefly discuss and even argue over your choices with two or three people. This engages the listener into the lecture that follows.
I have incorporated that before the sermon. Typically my wife leads them through the process.
Some like it. Some ignore it. But I have a few who hate it. Hate it. They fear that new people will immediately decide never to return once they are "required" to speak to someone.
What to do? Jesus sure never made following Him an easy call. The effectiveness of it for many is certain. But we don't want to shut the front door of our church to the unchurched.
I'm sure the argument would be that texting a note to the sermon notes, which we are very close to being able to do, would be much safer.
I actually think some new people might love it. I have one elder who leaves church every week just ecstatic that our church asked him to think rather than to just accept.
Thoughts?
Brian,
That is fascinating stuff. Over 85% of our congregation is under 25 so they are "plugged in" via social networking and texting. We have tried a few different things on Sunday's and found they love interaction, but in service, they prefer it to be more tactile.
During service we sit in a circle and it is not unusual for someone to cut into what I am saying to ask a question. I would rather clarify now then wonder what the furrowed brow was later. Sometimes others will answer the question instead of me and that helps a lot.
After the sermon portion we do a little q&a on the sermon right there before we take communion and as people are getting used to being allowed and encouraged to speak as opposed to having to speak per se, they enjoy the interaction.
The neat side benefit is that after service people do not come to me to ask about the sermon, but instead come to share life with me or talk about a need in their lives.
We do things mostly low tech on sundays and in our teen and young adult nights. Once in a blue moon I will have a video and the guitar is plugged into an amp and the singer or singers use a mic during worship service, but that is it. There is one 24 year old girl who sometimes has to work Sundays, and when she does, her roommate grabs one of those Flip video recorders and tapes the service for her to watch later, but that is not tech I bring in, but one roommate helping another.
I am sorry, I clicked send too early. I guess my point is about the texting thing. We see a younger generation using a new technology and try to incorporate it into church to make church more interesting or relevant or interactive. It reminds me of board games. Trivial Pursuit once had a DVD edition and Clue now has a text message edition. I have seen these in the past and they have a limited interest and pass by the wayside swiftly, but the regular old Clue and Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit still remain on the store shelves in production long after the fad version is over. A desire for interaction and greater connectivity with one another is the driving force behind texting and social networking. The web is no longer static, but dynamic and encourages interaction. But that interaction when in a room together can be tactile and done through voice. Be it sitting in a circle like at my service or sitting in a more conventional setting like yours and addressing your neighbor. I like those ideas, but I cringe at the cornyness of the text thingy. It reminds me of texting Clue and DVD Trivial Pursuit and Debit Card Monopoly. It is a bad marketing idea that will produce limited results.
Last thing and then I will shut up. Sorry for my usual dose of verbosity. Brian, I LOVE what you are reaching for. Talking to your neighbor about what you got out of service and roadblocks is WONDERFUL!!!! I also really really love what you are incorporating with your wife's training session and really wish I could be in yor neck of the woods to see what that conversation feels like and looks like. I disagree with those who fear that some may not come back. I think those who would be intimidated by such a process have many other places of worship they can go to to have the safe audience experience, but this that you propose challenges people to engage and interact and take part in the sermon which brings us one step closer to embracing the priesthood of all believers and having a real community as opposed to a buzzword community to pitch small groups. :)
I like Captain Tux's model of a q&a following the sermon, but I have to admit I'm a little afraid of ceding too much "open mike" time to a large group of people. In addition to the possibility of someone preaching an additional sermon(!), there is a worse danger. In my previous church we had an erroneous "prayer request" that actually was an attack on a church member. It caused a great deal of harm and resulted in one family leaving the church. (Nobody likes it when their kids are getting picked on at school as the result of an untrue rumor.) I think it's the kind of thing Paul was warning against in his instructions about orderly worship in 1 Cor. 14:26-33.
Nevertheless, I love the idea of people being able to ask questions. I always tell the folks in my Church 101 class that I welcome their questions; that's the best way to learn. Too many churches have instilled a fear of asking questions in their children, and as a result their faith development doesn't keep up with their intellect. No wonder so many young adults leave the church as soon as they leave home. Thank God for writers like C.S. Lewis!
The only reason I would have a hard time encouraging the use of Twitter (as in Brent's church) is that the older generation doesn't even know what it is, and they already tend to feel left out of the high-tech loop.
Speaking of tactile experience, I have two recent images to share. The first is from our recent Feetwashing service, at which my 13-year-old son was embraced by an older gentleman in his mid-80s. I'll treasure that picture for the rest of my life. (It's also one of the biggest reasons I love that particular Ordinance.)
The second experience is relevant to our society today. Today I heard a lady intimate that she hasn't felt comfortable coming to church recently because she feels pressured to hug people in our greeting time. She doesn't like that in this time of heightened H1N1 concerns. Sheesh, I don't want to eliminate a practice most people really love, and nobody HAS to hug (spoken by a non-hugger). I almost said, "Get over it."
Brian,
I love the idea of having people interact with each other in response to the sermon.
Of all the items that didn't work for our church planting effort years ago, one that I think worked really well was to have an interactive feedback session during a specific segment of the sermon. I would never be able to pull it off now I would fall into a classroom framework and make it more educational in nature and less of a challenge to change one’s beliefs or actions.
Another idea that I've seen work (and have led myself) is having someone other than the speaker for the day stand up immediately after the sermon and engage the audience in an interactive session. The downside of having the speaker do this is that it could come across as self-serving. I would use specific prompt questions but also allow time for spontaneous reactions and feedback.
Central to my concerns, in light of this ongoing discussion, is to maintain some level of human engagement in the process of talking about the sermon. One of the reasons that I do not like the text message format, while it may connect with people “where they are,” it does limit a great opportunity for engagement with a living, breathing person. Jesus isn't an idea. He's a person. The best way to learn to follow a person is to constantly engage real people. It sounds simple, and yet we miss this opportunity over and over again.
Also, as churches become larger face-to-face interaction becomes more and more difficult. The minute we begin to introduce technology in the name of efficiency is the minute (I believe) are moving in the wrong direction.
This is one of those items that I don't think we can simply say "Well, if it makes sense for your church go ahead and do it..."
Last question – I’m interested in your insights regarding the neutrality of technology. Any thoughts?
Patrick,
As I sort through topics it's sometimes helpful for me to read through a position in propositional form. Therefore, I have a follow-up question. Could you post 3-4 specific reasons why you would say that technology is morally neutral? I know you have provided a variety of examples on this issue, but something more specific would be helpful.
I wonder if you and I are using "morally neutral" in different ways. It seems like we have much agreement on the issue so I am curious to try to identify our differences a little more clearly.
Thanks in advance!
I will give a more propositional form later. I have to give the matter some deep thought and try to explain my view carefully and exhaustively as opposed to a swift post as I am prone to doing. I will say this really quick, however. It's the people who use technology that is moral or immoral. We make it good or bad, not technology per se. A simple analogy is a knife. It can be used by a person to commit a crime (bad), or to slice bread, but the knife by itself is neither good nor bad.
As for technological advancement, there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not controlled by a machine. There will be repercussions of technological advancement, but those repercussions will depend solely in the hands of the people who wield the technology. Fire was discovered and we have the choice to use it to cook meat or to burn down our neighbor's home.
Toviah,
Thank you for the kind words. I get your concerns. In my case I have a smaller gathering right now as we are only almost a year old as a community. I think we can keep this going as we grow, though, as we are setting the tone for how it is done. For the most part common sense prevails and we do not have a conflict with the Corinthians call for orderly worship.
Now, what works for me and my community may not work for you and yours, but I do think we need to find ways to increase our community involvement in the worship time and the sermon, because right now our way of preserving order of service is largely one person speaking and everyone else gets to be good audience members. :)
Random side note in regard to "nor does Paul write "become like a homosexaul to win the homosexuals..." " I have seen the term used in the past. Most gay people prefer to be referred to as gay or GLBT. The problem they have with the term homosexual is the emphasis on the sexual aspect. I know this is a minor thing, but when was the last time you heard someone refer to an African American as a Negro. Just in case we have gay friends reading, I don't want them to wince at our words.
I think we're addressing an issue that the Church is especially suited for: providing genuine, personal interaction in a society whose technology is creating a loss of personhood. Not that all tech is bad, as we'd all agree, but one of the side-effects of instant communication is that it can also isolate people and cause them, for example, to inhabit an electronic community rather than a flesh-and-blood one like the Church. This is why I don't agree with lifechurch.tv offering a "worship" service on Second Life. To me that's a frightening thing, and it carries cultural relevance too far. I had a friend who came to me in tears one time because his internet girlfriend told him she was afraid to meet him in real person because she had been raped. Later on he found out it was all a lie. I wonder how often this happens, and what collateral damage will result in our society? I suppose we'll just have to accept it and deal with the brokenness, but one thing the Church can and must do is provide a real encounter with Christ that will "humanize" the victims of electronic society.
@Brent.
I suppose I approach this from a pragmatic view. I like what James Carey said in "In Communication As Culture":
"Electronics is neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace. Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and transportation over space, and nothing more"
When I look at technology I try to replace whatever the technology is as either the mass produced car or the printing press. I usually go with the printing press. The printing press is not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or social ends desired by the person or institution in control of their written word. For me, when technology fails or when it has negative consequences, it is not the technology but the improper use of it by whomever created it or followed it.
Now, I do readily admit that technology constitutes a new type of cultural ecosystem that restructures the entire social world. Due to that fact, technology cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. We need to be mindful as to what people are using, and more importantly, how and why they are using the technology.
Twitter, for instance is a micro blog. How are people using it? They are sharing far too much information about themselves in 140 characters or less and "following" their "friends". They have confused sharing ones perspectives with narcissism and details about what they are doing. I am who I am, not what I do. In some ways I am what I do, but I am also much much more than what I merely do during the day so I am not sharing anything of value. So while the microblog is merely a microblog, the driving force for usage and the way it is used is largely unhealthy and the church needs to think about the appropriateness of using that tool. But again, for me the problem is the desires of my heart and the heart of men and women. To say Twitter is the problem misses the point.
I once saw at a Christian bookstore a net protection program that advertised it blocked Myspace. So I bought it, sure enough it did, but it did not block Facebook, Livejournal, Deadjournal, and other social networks. They deemed one thing as bad, but did not address any real problem.
Does that help with my position or do I need to make a better crack at it? :)
Patrick,
That works for me. Ultimately, we may arrive at differing conclusions but that will not prevent us from working well together on this (or other) topics.
On your other post regarding language: While I appreciate your sensitivity to those who may be reading this blog, I'm not sure your analogy to the African American terminology will hold up well under scrutiny. I am very familiar with the evolution of the language embraced by the homosexual community and feel comfortable in maintaining my usage. Perhaps this is not the place to begin a biblical exploration of race versus sexual identity/preference but that definitely is part of the issues that you raise.
If these views make me neither emergent nor progressive, I will accept that label.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Forgive the bluntness, but I feel that words matter. I have two lesbians in my community and one young man who is gay. They are taking this Jesus journey with our community because we have welcomed them into our community and given them safe harbor. The words we use to those and about those outside our communities matter if we want to love them the way Jesus did. More on tech on wednesday. I spend the last day in the hospital over some chest pains. I'm fine, but since I had a heart attack in '06, I take no chances. :)
Patrick,
The bluntness of your words did not help me understand the use of the word "homosexual" at all.
And they also pressed me away from this conversation.
I'm not upset or angry but in a medium like this you can't see the cringes on faces, so I thought I would at least let you see my face.
I have tremendous compassion for gays and think it is important to talk about areas where we are insensitive, and your first post was thought provoking.
But I'm not sure that last post didn't set the conversation back.
My most humble apologies.
My point was that words can unify or divide and some words can serve to divide. For us, a word can seem harmless and for others, they can cause great harm or discomfort. The term homosexual is swiftly becoming a word of insult to the gay community and just as we would never think of using some words, there are other words worth reconsidering.
I apologize for the strong terminology and bluntness and will refrain from such in the future. Please forgive me for any discomfort caused, that was wrong of me.
In other news, I wanted to showcase a use of technology that I experienced this week. I was brought into the ER with chest pains. I had a heart attack in 2006 so I am a little skittish when I feel pressure in my chest.
I went to the ER and there was an amazing use of technology all around me. Using the internet and their databases they were able to gain information about my health history and current medication I was on along with two critical medicinal allergies I have. They also had instand access to my physician and they were able to get his information and contact him for consultation and advisement. They did the same with my cardiologist. By 7 am my doctor was at my bedside visiting me and the cardiologist was there by noon.
All the staff at the hospital have these PDA style phones that keep them in touch with each other and other patients. My heart monitor was wireless and could be read without me being hooked up to a machine so I could use the washroom.
There was all this technology that helped them communicate with each other, monitor my stats, gain information, and I am sure to bill me and my insurance company.
The internet, databases, smart phones that they used is driven by the same technology that allows us to gamble our fortunes away online, consume, waste time talking to "friends" we have never met, and drive cell phone bills to three digits.
The same technology that I can use to kill my credit score and my marriage was used to provide swifter medical care to me. I suppose for me, this is an example to the neutrality of the technology.
Now to the bigger question. How does this help us with the church? At the end of the day, it was doctors and nurses and lab techs who saved my life and brought my stats back to acceptable levels. I think at the end of the day it is people who are disciples and can give compassion to one another. A website or a social network or some other tool can help us invite people to our communities and they can help us know more about our people (birthday reminders, anniversary reminders, food allergies to kids in the nursery, etc). No program can make a disciple and that is where some churches may be blurring the line. I do not know what to make of a church on second life and it rather scares me that people consider that worship. No powerpoint will ever bring us closer to God. Can imagery and lighting and other things help enhance a mood that is worshipful? Sure. Powerful imagery is very effective. Some of the reformers knew this and took it so far they removed quite a bit from sanctuaries and "sterilized" them.
Maybe the line is this? We seem to be in safe ground when we use these tools to streamline our time so we can be more available to others in the face to face realm, but we do a disservice when we look at these as tools to disciple in and of itself.
Fran's book is meant as a discipleship tool. The book by itself is good to read and may help, but it does not make a disciple. Now, take his book, the study guide, and get a room full of people with the book and the Bible in hand and discuss together in an intimate setting...now we have an opportunity to make disciples. The tool is just that, a tool...but ultimately we need to be in a room together. Some technologies such as twitter and facebook can serve to enable us to have greater separation from that tactile and intimate discussion.
Brian, if you wish to edit or delete the inappropriate and offensive comment, feel free to.
Patrick,
Glad to hear you're okay. And not just because I've enjoyed your contribution to this discussion (even though I have). :)
Thank you, kind sir. I have a huge history of heart disease in my family. None of my grandpa's siblings made it to 55 and half of my uncles did not pull it off either. That said, my grandpa made it to 82 and I've got one uncle pushing 60. They both worked out and do not smoke. I quit the smokes and I am working out. I am walking in their yoke if you will. I just have some former abuses to remedy as I have lost 30 pounds this year. My newest challenge is to work on stress as this one seems to have been anxiety driven. Oops!
On the lighter side, the day they released me I kicked some butt on the stress test. ;)
Thanks Patrick for your response. I did delete it. I am one who sometimes (often?) speaks before I think it through. Sometimes (often?) I need pushback.
Thanks, Brian.
Foot in mouth disease? Ha! You should see me on Sunday's when I dispense with the notes and start winging it. One time I said something that stopped everyone including me and one of our congregants broke the ice of silence by saying,"Yep, that's our pastor!" Thank goodness that led to uproarious laughter and we were able to move on. ;)
I think this may be one of the reasons I do not podcast our sermons...that and I don't like microphones. ;)
Thanks to those who participated in this conversation. My main goal is that we can continue to articulate an understanding of how the notion of cultural relevance factors into our ministry approach.
We started with the implications of technology and then Patrick highlighted the importance of language in our contemporary moment. Now, Bill is taking us in the direction of the role of formal doctrine in the 21st century.
Whatever the topic (technology, language, doctrine) we should continue to ask the tough questions about what it means to be faithful to scripture in a postmodern age. Just because something is new it doesn't mean it's better. But, just because it's old doesn't mean it should continue to be embraced without reviewing the value for today.
I invite you to add to these three topics and continue the conversation on cultural relevance. But if we move on to a new topic, hopefully you've found this conversation insightful
Post a Comment
<< Home