What is genius? Is it a person or thing that innovates? Something that redefines how daily life functions? What is the unique thing that makes genius…genius? It’s easy to call the late Steve Jobs genius – the man had hundreds of patents in his name. But, there are cases where genius could applied on a more base level. In a word, Genius is very much a descriptor of simple acts of bravery.
Much of how humanity lives and organizes itself is in to groups. Groups that define, refine and adapt common codes of thought, belief and behavior. We find ourselves being asked to make decisions of affiliation: political parties, religions (and then what sect of said religion), subcultures, music genres, movie genre preference, conservative & liberal, and a more recent designation – 99%er or 1%er (in socio-economic terms, it should be clarified). The group one chooses goes a long way in cultivating a public persona and social life. This phenomenon is not new, but is clearly amplified to 11 (I always wanted to reference Spinal Tap in an essay) in a world of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, among others. We are asked to join groups, often without ever asking if this is something we actually want or believe in. We are asked to be apart of a group, the goal of which is simply to be the biggest group.
This desire to grow is regardless of innovation (although the group is often born out of innovation – see Microsoft & the PC culture), often ignores morality (although the founding principles are often products of a desire for freedom and checks & balances – see capitalism, Wall Street & the resulting outcry of the OccupyWallStreet movement), and typically ignores social justice (although with out it, the groups would not have the opportunity to exists – see democracy & religious freedom in the Western World). Simply put, we are told we need to be the apart of the biggest group because it is right and important to be the biggest group in whatever field/genre/subculture/world/universe that group is inhabiting.
Genius may form these groups, but that genius will die (often slowly) and is then reborn out of a breaking away from the group once it plateaus and becomes stagnant. GENIUS IS THE BRAVERY TO GO A DIFFERENT WAY. There are many examples of this.
For example:
Polytheism -> Monotheistic Judaism -> Early Christianity -> Universal Catholic Church -> Protestant Church -> Evangelical Church -> Emergent Church -> ?
Decrees/scrolls -> Mail posts (pre-industrial revolution) -> Telegraphs -> modern Mail -> Faxes -> Email -> Chat Rooms -> Instant Messenger -> Text Messages -> Facebook -> Twitter -> ?
Computers: it is easier to just post this link: A computer timeline
You may see my point. Genius is simply the brave choice to do something different. This why Steve Jobs was genius. And he did it twice with Apple. This is why, despite the conservatives and other economically comfortable (this can mean a lot of things, as in you can be technically poor but comfortable with your life choices/desires), the Occupy Wall Street movement is genius. {{Which oddly enough is being mocked for using the tools of the corporate greed (technology) to fight the way in which our system works. No one has stopped to consider that the rifles used in the Revolutionary War were most likely sourced through British means, yet we do not decry the genius of the Founding Fathers.}} It is why the internet is continually genius, because it does not plateau or rarely becomes stagnant as a whole.
And it is why the Christian church in American today – typified by the Protestant evangelical movement – is not genius in the way God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are genius at work in history and culture. A bold sweeping generalization, I know, but one must think in these broader terms when examining the evangelical church in particular.
A great article highlighting this by Zach Lind, framed in the controversy surrounding the resignation of prominent pastor Rob Bell & the conservative evangelical response, highlights the way the church (and its factions) tend to operate within this construct:
Conservatives main tendency is to protect the current state of the Church. Despite its many imperfections, Conservatives generally see the Church as it is worth protecting and preserving while ushering in incremental changes along the way. Conservatives, for the most part, want to conserve the traditions and structures of the church. Liberals, on the other hand, generally don’t share that same tendency to protect the current state of the Church. Liberals yearn for a kind of resetting of the church, from the ground up without the obstacles that the tradition brings. The default mode of liberals is to operate with a healthy skepticism of the Church as well as the conventional wisdom that directs the current trends of American Christianity. To use a forestry metaphor, conservatives prefer to use controlled burns and firebreaks to tend to the health of the forest. For them the forest isn’t in perfect shape so just a little maintenance is needed. On the other hand, liberals wouldn’t mind the prospect of an all out forest fire to clear the way for new trees to eventually come back even stronger, which is often the case. For them, the forest is beyond mere maintenance. The major difference is between how both groups evaluate the health of the Church and that greatly impacts their involvement in the church now and their vision for the future. The conservative response to the departure of a well-known Christian leader is generally summed up by saying, “if you leave the church, you are minimizing your influence to communicate the love of God to the world.” But the liberal response would be summed up by saying, “the church in its current state is doing such a poor job of communicating the love of God to the world that we must venture outside the church walls, free from the obstacles the church has constructed.”
One can see how the camps have sided with a clearly defined courses of action. They cannot build on each other’s ideas because they see the other’s actions as fundamentally opposed to the truth of Jesus as they have defined it through a mountain of words, debates and conferences (while the poor still starve and generations have lost their god-given spirituality).
The brave act of genius is not entirely shunning that which birth it (again, genius) as pure Christian liberalism is prone to do, nor is shunning innovation/change/paradigm shifts, as conservative Christianity is prone to doing.
Genius is taking that which is pure and grabbing hold of it and running into a new and uncharted direction that can lead to something creative, helpful, life changing, spiritual and eternal.
That last word trips us up. Eternal. We think of it in terms of an unending, unchanging existence. But the amazing thing about spirituality (which is God’s ultimate genius) is that the only way for something spiritual (or religious) to be eternally genius and vital to our life is that it must change – change, but by building and altering, not ignoring that which it came from.
For the church to be united and not considered an increasingly less vital part of daily life for humanity, it must be willing to constantly innovate (and not with programs and lights and bigger buildings) itself in overarching theology & across doctrines and in the application and approach to those sacred things of the faith.
Because a computer will always be needed to make an iPhone or an iPad. You change, but you know what is at the core.
Therefore we know that Christ will always be at the center of Christian faith, but how we adapt, grow, shed and are reborn as Christians will determine the ultimate survival of Christianity in the course of an eternal history.
And the fact that this need for an adaptable faith is laid out, prophesied and then bore witness to by Jesus in scripture? Well, that is genius we cannot and should not continue to ignore.