Kim Gentes

From October 29 through November 11, I had the priviledge of spending time with about 18 other worship leaders from around the world (Canada, US, Brazil, and UK). By "spending time" I mean that we all lived, ate, prayed, talked, laughed, and learned together for two weeks at the Dominion Hill Leadership Center. This is a beautiful remote retreat location affiliated with the St. Stephen's University out of St. Stephen, New Brunswick, Canada. The Institute of Contemporary & Emerging Worship Studies (ICEWS) is a new branch of St. Stephen's University, and is directed by Dan Wilt.

The two week intensive (in which myself and the other 17 worship leaders participated in) was the inaugural run of the ICEWS Certificate In Worship Leadership & Spiritual Formation (you can check out more on their programs here).

How do I go about explaining the impact or learning that went on? Wow. That is tough. But one thing I learned most importantly, didn't have to do with the content of the course. Rather, it was the form of the learning environment. We learned as community. Sure there were great professors and staff, and we had lots of excellent instruction. This was no junior effort. Scholars like Dr. Peter Davids, Dr. Peter Fitch, and Dr. Greg Finley provided us with some remarkable information and examination of historic, current and future Christianity spirituality and community. We learned a lot. And were challenged deeply. Dan Wilt examined the historic and recent return to a more holistic following of Christ through our living as image-bearers of Christ on earth and the details of creational theology. We also had plenty of practical application, as day by day we connected through liturgy and personal and group devotion to our Creator. We walked through the historic practices (with instructor Lorna Jones) of Ignatian prayer, the daily hours and other learnings from our fore-fathers in the faith.

But what really struck me about this extended time was that the 18 of us students, became conduits of instruction, right along with our teachers, as the Holy Spirit taught us all through lecture, Q&A and round-table discussions. There was very little lecture actually. The weight of the new knowledge acquisition was placed on our reading/viewing of the 5 books, 2 multi-media, and about a dozen handout articles that were part of the intensive course. With that as the backdrop, the instructors would come into our sessions, present a 30 minute examination of their major points, and then the learning would explode. After the initial presentation of summary thoughts by the instructor, the students would be queried for an hour or more on what they thought, or insights they had, on the topic at hand. This would sound untenable, if you were not there. But this group of learners had committed themselves to being together for 2 weeks. And it was that commitment that bore open our souls to one another. And out came the wisdom of God, as it was being expressed in each of our unique communities. Instead of each of us having our own separate "grasp" of God's heart on a topic, we all shared. And soon we all were growing and learning from one another.

I have been a part of a number of "round table" meetings and instructional contexts. But none worked as powerfully as this. The reason? I believe it was commitment. All of us knew we were going to be spending a lengthy time together and we needed to be committed to each other, even living with one another, for the two weeks. It's quite a unique thing. I believe the commitment meant that we placed value in each other's words. That we held one another as essential. That without each person giving voice to God's wisdom in their life, that we were somehow not the complete expression of Christ's Body in that place, at that time.

Now, I am interested to investigate more this type of learning community. A symbiosis of community, commitment and valuing the voices of one another. It was remarkable how brilliant my brothers and sisters became in the light of loving them by valuing them enough to listen with a receptive heart. Perhaps they were always that brilliant. Perhaps I haven't been living, listening and valuing the voice of others as I should.

Wow. Now that is learning.

Teach me more Lord. Teach me more, brothers and sisters.

(my official computer geek picture).

It's funny.. People are funny. And that is cool. Some folks were asking why I chose to have a blog where I moderate the posts, so I figure a little explanation is in order. (Update, Nov 19, 2006: this has actually now changed. I don't moderate posts to the blog any longer. People can now post responses at will, though I do quality checks on posted content after the fact to make sure people are not putting junk in the blog.)

Back in the day... It was 1993. I was working in a big company with techno-job doing coolish fun stuff for a geek like me. Said company just opened up the network of our local systems so that we could email folks outside the company. I ventured out and started contacting folks as far as I could, for no particular reason, other than to see what this all meant. No one even was talking about anything called the internet. It was the word people used, sure, but it wasn't like it was sexy or cool or hip. It was just some collective bundle of wires that some company's had risked to get out and connect up with, along with the ironclad government/defense systems that were already linked in, and the willy-nilly universities and colleges that where trying to share information. I mean people thought, yah, this might be useful to share files, maybe do some electronic mail and stuff. There was FTP, something called golpher, email, Usenet, bitnet, and just a touch of WWW. The official definition of the W3C (what would define the HTML language for webpages) was still being written. The first version of Mosaic (precursor to Netscape) had been released by NCSA's Marc Andreessen. There were literally only 200 or so known reliable webservers online at the time. By March, 1994 Marc Andreessen left NCSA and started Mosaic Communications Corp" (later Netscape).

During 1994, we got interested in bringing a group together to help worship leaders with worship related stuff.. I tried to get it going in newsgroups, but that ultimately failed (see newsgroup posting here). Eventually, I found a friend at University of Colorado and we started the worship list. Soon he left or something (never found out what) and I had a list of email addresses with no server host for an email discussion group. Through yet another friend, I found a home at the UIUC (university of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) for the worship list. After university bandwidths continued to struggle, we moved it to a Christian non-profit called www.grmi.org, and eventually ended up hosting it ourselves through www.praise.net. This trek was all about communications, email specifically. The discussion group grew into several hundred and people would yak about everything worship. Mostly. We also participated online through newsgroups at news:rec.music.christian which would barely pass for being PG-13 on most days.

Sometime in 1995, myself and a few others started a webpage for worship that linked in the worship list email discussion group and became a landing spot for the worship FAQ (a e-database of info that I had originally developed in Filemaker pro on a Mac). A couple friends I found online (Jon Ried & Brad Donison) took my text flat file and converted the data into useful stuff on the web (using CGI/Perl). It was all getting quite hideous in size, but we had many people who wanted to help, so there was a lot of people involved in putting the web site, FAQ and discussion group to use. By this time we discovered free flow communications is great for stirring conversations, but not good at helping the content to either be focused or necessarily helpful/encouraging. We implemented moderators on the Worship List in about 1996, and that model has been running now for 10 years on that list. It is the first and longest running list on Worship, and in my mind still remains the most helpful to people/leaders conversing and supporting one another in worship ministry.

By 1997, I had been on email and news discussion for 3 years and realized that there were a few universal truths about e-conversations:

• people like to talk
• people want relationships
• the internet is a place where people can have relationships without responsibility
• people often use the internet as a place where they can talk/take relationship without being responsible for their words.

This is why we put moderation in the Worship List discussion group the year before, and why so much junk mail, newsgroups and forums are practically useless even to this day. The e-world is much different than the real life world. In real life, if you speak something to someone, you are physically present to encounter the response. In e-life, you can spout off what you want, and even if people would like to know who you are, you can hide. That is not conversation. I think talking without "owning" your words is gossip at best and possibly even abuse when taken to the extreme. If you care enough to speak, chat or whatever, it only means something real if you back up the words with a person, a being, a friend, a colleague. Further, no one cares who says anything if they aren't big enough to own up to saying it.

Back in the day (1997)... is when I started publishing a column called the "Worship Thought". It was just quotes at first, but quickly became a bit of a binary log of my thoughts ( http://www.praise.net/quote/index.php?q=classic ). Yep, a blog before blogs where cool. People would often respond to the content of the columns, but in the context of a the moderated discussion of the worship list (archives began in 1997 for the list, which you can find here http://www.fni.com/worship/). Some times people would email me privately in disdain or approval or just "yo.. makes me think".

By early 1998, I was involved in starting up a number of worship related resource sites, including one that became my full time job (Worshipmusic.com). In the context of that, I managed to write several editorial columns over the years (though not as much lately). From time to time, we experimented with forums, chat rooms, other discussion lists, web sites and more. What we found was that people will say what they want on the internet if they aren't given some "netiquette" thoughts to help frame the conversation. As soon as people felt they needed to be responsible with their words they either began being helpful to one another and conversing in a way that removed slander and gossip, or they left the discussion in hopes of "freer" realms. This didn't mean things didn't get heated or people not opinionated or subjects controversial. Far from it. It meant we allowed our speech online to become what we knew it should offline.. That is, to be salt and light, instead of angst and irresponsible spew.

Back in the day.... ya, back in the day... its a good thing the internet is so much more advanced now and you don't have to worry about people spouting spew anymore online... that's a relief... I don't think free speech has evolved much with the internet.. for those who didn't have a voice, it is certainly a possible vehicle.. But its doubtful that any of the forefathers of America ever envisioned free speech without the personal responsibility from the speaker (owning his words).. They had to own their words of declaration, speaking against the powers of their time, forging the constitution, negotiating our lands, pursing a system of justice for all... They owned their words, and it is on whose ownership we owe our freedom...

So you can spout all you want... If its worthwhile, someone might listen... If you don't own up and choose to be anonymous, its words from darkness... If you stand and speak into the community's you live in, with words that reflect your life, people will not only listen.. They may follow...

Kim