A new collaborative community of faith is starting up in Cleveland that will combine the ideas of organic church and social networking/web 2.0 functions. Phyllis and I have been talking and praying about this for years and we feel the context is finally right. For those of you who know us, you know that this will not be like any church you've ever heard of...some folks may even have a difficult time calling it church. That's OK. I prefer the phrase "collaborative community of faith," because that's more in line with New Testament theology. The word "church" just doesn't carry the same connotations that it did 2,000 years ago.

Anyway, a web portal is in the works. For now, keep checking back here for info. This will be an intergenerational, family-centric model.

As a primer, consider reading George Barna's Revolution in addition to the Neil Cole book listed above.

When it comes to design, nobody does it better than Fluevog.

What's that? You've never heard of Fluevog? Well, well. Let me be the first to introduce you.

It was 1989. I was living in Yakima Washington with my good friend James Allen and he and I made a day trip to Seattle. The city is awesome. I fell in love: the Space Needle, Pike Place Market, the "melting pot" of cultures...it was truly an experience. And then James, who shares my inordinate love for cool clothes and shoes, took me to Fluevogs. It blew my mind. In this store were the wildest shoes I had ever seen in my life. I've been a fan since that day. Right now I'm drooling over a few pair of shoes available on the Fluevog web site. But it gets better.

Fluevog has this thing called Open Source Footwear (see the image below).

This is an fantastic idea. Since I am a huge fan of Fluevog and a designer, I decided to give it a go. That's right, I designed a shoe for Fluevog. If it gets enough votes, they'll make the shoe!

So, if you get a chance, go to the OpenSource section of fluevog.com and vote on my design.

Did you see this story out of the Baptist Press:

Have you read the part of the Sermon on the Mount about homosexuality? If that doesn’t ring a bell, don’t worry. A lot of people are wondering exactly what presidential hopeful Barack Obama meant when he cited Jesus’ famous sermon as justification for his endorsement of homosexual civil unions. “I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” Obama said. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” Russell D. Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, disagrees with Obama’s interpretation, yet sees hope in the fact that he cited Scripture. “Conservative evangelicals and other social conservatives should not see Sen. Obama’s statements here as necessarily bad news. He is acknowledging that his theological presuppositions affect the way he views governmental justice issues. We should be willing to engage that conversation, even when (as will often be the case) we have something very different to say.” [Baptist Press, 3/3/08, emphasis added]

Now, obviously, Obama should read his Bible a little more often, 'cuz he's a bit up-mixed. However, I do agree with his basic position. If our government wants to grant civil unions to homosexuals, I say let 'em. Actually, it seems about right for the US government to do such a thing. Fits with the character. And it doesn't hurt me in any way...legally, socially or theologically. But marriage is a different case altogether.

First of all, the US government did not create marriage, God did, and it happened in Genesis. Second, marriage was not only instituted by God, but it was also clearly defined by God: It is intended to be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Anytime this definition has been co-opted the results have been less than admirable. Just ask Solomon.

So, despite the seemingly impossible odds, I actually agree with Barack Obama...at least on this one account. Who'd a thunk it?

Holy 80s flashback, Batman, it's almost here!

Hopefully, you've started working on your 80s outfit and making overnight arrangements if necessary. If not, this email may help.

Click here for a detailed map of local hotels and contact info:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hl=en&msa=0&ll=35.165757,-84.871337&spn=0.011104,0.023518&z=16&msid=114060269261063643231.000446d926e9e06a42dad

The map includes our house, Walmart (essential knowledge for any town), hotels, Panera, Starbucks and, of course, the Boys & Girls Club where the party is happening. Feel free to call if you have any questions.

As for 80s outfits, try these links for ideas:
http://del.icio.us/ericwilbanks/80s

Also, if you can be sure to RSVP if you will need childcare so that I can finalize all the proper arrangements. I need to know how many children you will have and what their ages are (Cuz we obviously don't want to put older children in any of the small child cages. That would be in-humane). Seriously, please let me know ASAP! Your kids will be well-cared for!

Oh, and don't forget: Bring as many people as you want! The more the merrier...

I want to personally thank each of you in advance for helping make my 40-10th birthday party the most awesome party of my life! I am truly excited about spending the evening with you all as we wax nostalgic together!

Labels: 80s, Birthday, Eric Wilbanks

Back in October 2007, Richard Dennison (works for BT on intranet, social media and knowledge management strategy) found an article in the Guardian on-line that contained the following quote from Jason Calacanis:

“Web 3.0 is the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform. Web 3.0 throttles the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ from turning into the ‘madness of the mobs’ we’ve seen all too often, by balancing it with a respect of expert.”

This is no different from the “evolution of education” that has taken place over the past century (but at a significantly faster rate…eh?):

1. Web/Ed 1.0 was pedagogical—Prior to the 1800s, American education was almost exclusively conducted from a pedagogical model, in which the teacher was the expert in the content area and presented information to the learner who passively absorbed whatever was required. This was remarkably duplicated in Web 1.0, where the content holder (whoever was capable of constructing a web site) became the “expert” (albeit a 21st century version) and the rest of us browsers passively absorbed whatever they spit out.
2. Web/Ed 2.0 is andragogical—Then along came Malcolm Knowles, who, in an effort to counter this model, popularized the concept of andragogy. Andragogy, Knowles argued, was preferable because it was based upon the observable learning phenomena that (A) adults learned what they considered important to them, and that (B) adults needed to be highly participative in the learning process. It should be pretty obvious that this is where Web 2.0 draws it’s inspiration. Thanks to the advancement of the internet, now anyone can create content of his/her own while simultaneously participating in the content creation of others.
3. Web/Ed 3.0 will be/is synergogical—In 1987, Mouton and Blake began writing about a new approach to education, which they called synergogy. Synergogy attempts to avoid the abuses of andragogy (blind leading the blind) and pedagogy (non-participatory) by positioning a truth source to guide the collaborative process of participatory, interactive learning…hence, the quote above from Jason Calacanis.

While many (if not most) conservative organizations will balk at Web 2.0s andragogical methods, those same organizations will likely be more open to the synergogy of Web 3.0, which utilizes the “respect of expert” to coach and facilitate the “wisdom of the crowds.”

As we close out 2007 and head into the 2008 election year I thought it might be helpful to recommend a resource that is available for concerned voters called "On the Issues," found at www.ontheissues.org. On the Issues is a "non-partisan information [repository] for voters in the Presidential election, so that votes can be based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity. We get our information daily from newspapers, speeches, press releases, and the Internet..."

On the Issues documents all findings and does a good job of pointing out the candidates stance on whatever issue may be of concern for you, making it easy to compare. I've found the graphic summary (I am a visual person, after all) to be especially interesting. Here's a sample of those graphics and the Positional statement for the top Republican candidates (in alphabetical order) as they appear on the web site:






Wherever you find yourself on the political spectrum...and I'm sure we all have different opinions...I encourage you to do your "due diligence" and research the issues that are most important to you and your family before casting your vote in the coming weeks.

Happy New Year to you all!

Without exception, every client that comes to me for design begins the conversation with something akin to the following:

"I've tried to do it myself, but I'm not a designer" or
"I need a ____ but I'm not very artistic" or
"I have a ____ but it's pretty basic. I want something that looks really sharp and professional."

Of course, I'm happy to oblige, because that's what I do. I live for this stuff. I love it so much that I study design everywhere...magazines, billboards, malls, books, bathrooms, you name it. I'm obsessed with the desire to create great designs. I'm not the best, but I'm always striving towards that goal.

All good, right? Sort of...

Because almost as frequently, those same clients will take my design ideas and tweak them endlessly, with round after round of changes, until the end result is anything but artistic, sharp and professional. Some of them are so bad that I cannot afford to post them on my portfolio for fear of being associated with such poorly executed designs.

That's not to say that clients don't ever have good ideas for changes. Sometimes, a client wants a change that forces me to think and work a bit harder and the result is a better design than I had started with. But at the risk of sounding like a snobby art guy, that doesn't happen very often. And the reason is obvious...great designers aren't coming to me for help. They do it themselves. It's those who realize that design is not their strength that come to me for help. Which is why I sometimes remind clients and potential clients that they come to me because of my expertise in design. If they want to take full advantage of that expertise, it will mean trusting my design extincts over and above their own.

Of course, having said all that, I do maintain that it's the clients call. Whether I create a design that I think is beautiful or ugly is, in a sense, irrelevant. In the end, my price doesn't change either way. I still get paid and the client is happy...at least for the moment.

So, I guess it is all good...sort of.