Nathan Key

Husband, Father, Thinker.

 

 
 
For this week's edition of Interview Thursday (which is actually every other week) I got to speak with Jeff Flowers. He is a Pastor in Cincinnati and we met about 6 or 8 months ago through Twitter. He's a good guy with a lot of good questions and conversations on his blog regarding Christianity and the current status of "Church Culture." I think you're really going to enjoy the conversation we had this week.

Also, check out his site http://www.cincymissionary.com for more on Jeff!
* * *
NATHAN KEY: First, Jeff, thanks for giving me a chance to interview you. You're the first "Pastor" I've had the opportunity to talk with for my Thursday sessions. I guess that means you've got the power to really take this thing anywhere you want to. Scary, huh?

JEFF FLOWERS: Thanks for having me, Nate. I’m honored to be a part of your Thursday sessions. I tune into your blog every week and I’m glad we’ve hooked up through Twitter, it’s been a fun connection.

NATHAN KEY: It has been fun.

**Side note to my readers: If you are using Twitter, be sure to look up Jeff - he uses the name: Cincymissionary.**

Speaking of connection- you recently joined a church plant in Cincinnati. I'm sure it took a lot of courage to move from full time employment to "missionary" work. Can you tell me a little bit about what made you and your family head in this direction with your ministry?

JEFF FLOWERS: Yes, I recently joined The Bridge as the Executive Pastor. The Bridge is a church plant located near the University of Cincinnati Campus in uptown Cincy. I have always wanted to do ministry in the city. I believe the city is where culture is made and where I can impact the most as a Christian. The Bridge came along at the right time.

NK: Now, I hate to say that "Church planting" is all the rage these days, but it does seem that a lot of churches are moving toward house churches, church plants, and multiple campuses instead of the Mega-Church Model of the 80's and 90's. Why do you make of this trend? Is it merely a cultural correction to institution or do you think there's some sort of deep theological shift that's moving the church in this direction?

JF: Great question. You’re correct that “church planting” is the rage these days. In the 80’s you saw a conservative religious resurgence in America. And in a far-swung reaction, the “seeker” movement was born in the 90’s and that’s where you saw the mega-church and mega-personality pastor really take off. For about ten years now, the “church-planting” model has been the birthing of “little” mega church models with a heavy emphasis on church health and creativity. The next ten years will be about one word: mission or missional.

Now are these theological shifts? Unfortunately, no they are not. A lot of emphasis has been placed on “cultural relevance”, but there are a few good young pastors that are focusing on truth and theology and its transcendence over relevance that are reaching the millennials.

NK: You just said that it's unfortunate that there haven't been a lot of theological shifts that are causing the "church planting movement." What are some theological shifts that you think need to take place in order for us to continue aligning ourselves with Christ?

JF: I think the evangelical church in America needs to shift toward the primacy of biblical preaching. I recently had a medical doctor as a guest at The Bridge and she told me she was tired of relevant, she wanted truth. This is true of a lot of young Americans in this post-Christian era we’re heading toward.

There also seems to be a lopsided emphasis on “spiritual formation” being more about the quest for a greater self than for a greater God. Somewhere on the journey, we have forgotten about the personal nature of God and His plan for redemption. We want to approach our relationship with God in ways that makes Him a mystical experience to pursue. Our discipleship takes the form of “figuring out what God is up to in our lives” instead of believing He is an ever-present loving God that never changes. This is the picture of God that Jesus gives us in the parable of the prodigal son.

And this is the “difficulty” in following God. We take too seriously our fickle and weird nature. We try very hard to change so God will reveal Himself, or accept us. The Bible is very clear. In Jesus, we have the full revelation of God and we need nothing else. He is our sufficiency. He is fully accepting of who we are and not as we should be.

These are theological issues. It’s theological to believe that I must decrease and He must increase. It takes theology to understand suffering and humiliation. It takes theology to have a solid belief in the power of God to make one righteous. To have “spirituality” without substance can be destructive to one’s faith.

Whew. You got me started with that question, sorry for the rambling.

NK: No worries. And I agree with you that we've often sacrificed substance for relevance. At the same time, however, we obviously don't want to go too far the other way and isolate ourselves from culture, right? So, are there any solutions you can think of that will help us communicate in the language of the people we're serving without compromising the Gospel as we do it?

JF: Balance? I guess the longer I follow Christ the more I don’t believe in balance. I may get a lot of push back from this answer, so here it goes.

Is the Christian to live in balance with the culture? A lot of us -and I include myself here- are afraid of becoming irrelevant to the culture around us so we swing back and forth on this never-ending question to find how we will maximize growth without compromising the message. I don’t think this is the thinking of a missional Christ-follower.

Here’s what I mean. Most Christian’s have memorized Romans 12:1-2- you know, the verses about not conforming to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind? These are the ultimate verse about our relationship to the world as believers, right? But, have we understood these verses in context? I challenge you to read Romans 12:3-21 today. Is this the Christianity you see in the world today? It seems to me that we should be less worried about communicating in the language of the people and more concerned about not thinking too highly of ourselves (v. 3), letting our love be genuine (v. 10) and associating with the lowly (v. 16). This is the “relevant” language all people are looking for everywhere. This is best said by Jesus, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden (isolated).” Therefore, the best way to serve without compromise is to allow the light of Christ to shine in my life so people will glorify (make relevant) my Father in heaven. This is the relevant language of God.

NK: I love that. And I agree with you that there are some things, like love, that are never irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how you dress them up, or fail to dress them up, the core fruit of the Spirit isn’t at risk for being rejected. People want to be loved and they want hope and peace. So yea, we should probably get back to that, huh? OK, This is totally off topic, but I was wondering about gotees. You’ve got one, yourself, and it seems like gotees are sort of standard issue for a lot pastors these days. Thoughts?

JF: Ha. Yes. There’s a funny graphic or YouTube thing out there about gotees and other prerequisites for the job. I look like a baby-face without mine.

NK: That’s funny. I want to talk about your blog for a moment. On there I've seen a lot of good thoughts and discussions regarding "what church is" or "what it should be." Have you come to any conclusions about where "church" should be headed or what it should ideally "look like" in order to be not only effective, but also a truer reflection of what Christ intended it to be.

JF: Yes, there are some “lively” discussions on the blog. I think the truest reflection of what Christ intended the church to be is that the authenticity of my love for Jesus Christ should be measured in how I relate to people everyday on the street. Church should look like Jesus.

Most of the discussions today are about style and substance as it’s relevant, again, to the culture. Most churches try to minister in reaction to the culture instead of going to where the centers of culture are and joining the conversation. Remember, Jesus said, “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” A biblical church is a sending church. That’s why I call myself a missionary to Cincinnati.

NK: One last question before we go. Sometimes people put pastors into a little box where they don't seem like real people. I'm convinced that planting a church is probably not your ONLY passion in life. So, could you tell us about some of the other things you're crazy about?

JF: Sure. I think more and more people are relaxing on the “pastors in a box” thing. But, you’re right, the minute someone finds out you’re a pastor, the atmosphere in the room changes. I love Stephen King short stories, blogging and NASCAR (I know, sorry). I have a tattoo and will be getting a second after swim season. Mostly, I’m crazy about my wife and 4 kids (2 girls, 2 boys), they are the coolest people I know.

NK: I can understand that, I get more crazy about Beth and Ethan every day! Jeff, thanks so much for allowing me to ask some of these questions. I’m excited that I get to continue following your story. Thanks for the interview!
* * *
If you’ve enjoyed these thoughts from Jeff Flowers, be sure to check out his website/blog: http://www.cincymissionary.com
 
 

An interview I did with Christopher Cocca on Googlewave and Technology was picked up by the site Watching The Watchers.

You can enjoy it again over there if you'd like:
http://watchingthewatchers.org/indepth/57317/&usg=AFQjCNH4NZ3kY3t--actR2fx13EmegCZkQ

 
 
About a year ago I ran across Micah Tillman's website, http://www.micahtillman.com, which espouses a very similar topic range as my own and after reading through a few of his posts, I discovered that he is indeed a most formidible scholar and a valuable voice regarding politics, religion, and philosophy. I immediately subcribed to his blog feed and I've been reading his posts ever since.

Micah is a Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America and is currently writing a dissertation on Edmund Husserl’s theory of empty and filled intentions. He's also been kind enough to answer a number of my own personal questions through his blog and also by e-mail.

The other day I asked if he's be willing to answer a few questions for my readers and he was kind enough to share his insights on life and his ideas on philosophy in the form of a casual interview. I'm really pleased that I'm able to post it here on my blog, today, and I'd encourage you to check out his website and his other writing if you enjoy what you read here.
* * *

Nathan Key: First question, you're teaching philosophy, which totally puts you in a different class than say, myself (I'm looking into grad schools for the future), but whenever I tell people about my own interest in philosophy, they always counter with some sort of "what are you going to do with a philosophy degree?" statement. So, let's go ahead and entertain that question for a moment. Other than just teach philosophy, what's the big goal of yours? What do you hope to accomplish with your PhD?

Micah Tillman: Teachers have a strange role. Rather than going out and "having lives" themselves, it's their job to help other people live better (live more intelligently, more skillfully, more virtuously).

A teacher of politics teaches other people how to govern, rather than governing for herself. A teacher of architecture teaches other people how to build buildings, rather than building buildings herself. Etc.
 
A teacher doesn't make things; a teacher makes people -- or, rather, a teacher helps people make themselves -- who then go out and make things.

A teacher doesn't shape things; a teacher shapes people who then go out and shape things.

So, it looks like teachers do nothing, make nothing. Everything that is done and shaped is done and shaped by students. But that just means you measure a teacher's success in terms of people, not things. Teachers change the world for the better by changing their students for the better. Or, rather, teachers change the world for the better by helping their students change themselves for the better.

And that means that being a teacher is both arrogant and humiliating . You have to both think you can help your students become better than they are, and accept the fact that your profession relegates you to role of "having once had an influence on" the movers and shakers (rather than being a mover and shaker yourself).  (But to be honest, I'm not sure anyone would want to see me either move or shake, so it's probably best for everyone that I'm just a teacher. . . .)

So, what's my big goal other than teaching? I want to be a writer. I want to write books that will help people think more clearly about their lives, as I gradually learn to think more clearly about my own. And it really helps to have a "Ph.D." after your name, when it comes to getting people to read your books.

Nathan Key: On your blog, you've been writing an ongoing commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans, which I've really enjoyed. Can you tell my readers a little bit more about this project and why it's so important to you?
 
Micah Tillman: Thanks! I'm trying to figure out whether I have to become a Calvinist ("Reformed"), you see. I'm scared that I'll have to.

My formative years were spent in a Baptist church that was part-Reformed, part-Anabaptist.  We were kind of Calvinist, and kind of anti-Calvinist. But I didn't know enough at the time to be as thoroughly confused as I later became.

Things came to a head, as they say, when recently I found a lot of lectures on iTunes U from Reformed Theological Seminary. I "go running" every day, and needed something intellectually-stimulating to listen to. So, I started listening to RTS lectures.

It's been both wonderful and infuriating. The Reformed Theologians are remarkable for their systematic, philosophical approach to theology. I really like that. And Tim Keller, of whom I've recently become a big fan, is a Presbyterian (a Calvinist/Reformed Theologian).

However, the more I listened, the more it became apparent to me that I had some serious problems with some of the central tenets of Reformed Theology.

So, I had to figure out whether the problems I had were legitimate. When I try to "figure something out," I have to write about it. That's how I work through things, explore ideas, develop arguments, and whatnot. That led to a lot of blogging about Calvinism and Reformed Theology, and eventually brought me to Romans.

Calvinists cited so many verses from Romans to support their Doctrine of Total Depravity, that I decided I was just going to have to study the whole letter.

And that meant I was essentially going to have to write a "commentary" on Romans.

It's been fascinating for me so far. I'm five or so chapters in and have already found things -- things that seem hugely important to me -- that I had never noticed before. So far it's not looking good for the Calvinists, but there's a lot of Romans left.  I never know quite what's going to turn up in the next block of verses, so you may get to watch me become a Calvinist before your very eyes. Or you may get to watch me get to the final verse of Romans and say, "Ha!  I knew I was right!"

Of course, once I'm done with Romans, I'll have to then get back to the list of specific verses that I was going through when I ran into the block from Romans (and got sidetracked).

Nathan Key: Hey, I'll definitely be looking forward to those other commentaries, too!

OK, here's a question that I'm interested in. It seems like Twentieth Century Philosophy is often associated with atheism and agnosticism- especially since some of the more preeminent twentieth century philosophers were so adamantly anti-god or anti-religion. But lately, it seems like there's been a renewed interest among Christians regarding philosophy. Why do you think that is?

Micah Tillman: There are at least two reasons: Brian McLaren and the New Atheists.

First: It's Brian McLaren's "fault." Or, rather, it's the "Emergent Church Movement's" "fault," of which McLaren is a prime mover.

As best I can tell, it was McLaren who decided that Protestant Christianity needed to do two things: (1) admit it was living in a postmodern world, and (2) embrace postmodernism. (You can do the former without doing the latter, but McLaren thinks we need to do both.  See his A New Kind of Christian series <http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Christian-Friends-Spiritual/dp/078795599X/>.)

Once the word gets around that we don't live in the modern world (like everyone thought!), but in fact are living after the modern world, people start to get curious. What is postmodernism? How is it different from modernism? What in the world is modernism, anyway? (I'd suggest Crystal Downing's, How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith <http://www.amazon.com/How-Postmodernism-Serves-Faith-Questioning/dp/0830827587/>, in response to those questions.)

And once you start asking questions like that, you have to start studying philosophy. Without postmodernism as a philosophical movement, McLaren would have had to turn somewhere else.  Without Derrida and Foucault, there would be no McLaren. Or, rather, McLaren would be a different McLaren than he is today. And that means everyone who is now caught up in the Emergent Church movement would have had to frame what they were doing in completely different terms.

In other words, the legitimacy of the Emergent Church rests on the legitimacy of postmodern philosophy. It's in the postmodernist's critique of modernist ways of thinking that McLaren & Co. found a way to respond to what they thought was wrong with the Christianity they grew up on.

Second: It's the New Atheists' (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) "fault."

After 9/11, and in the midst of the presidency of George W. Bush, the atheists of the West felt under attack from "Religious Extremists." So they fought back with a series of books against the idea of God and the fact of religion.

That, in turn, led American Christians, at least, to feel under attack. After all, the New Atheists represent enlightenment, reason, toleration, etc. They're smart, well-respected people. They are the intelligentsia.

So prominent Christians began to respond with their own books. (See, for example, Tim Keller's The Reason for God <http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/0525950494/>, and search for "new atheism" on Amazon for any number of others.) 

The New Atheists were claiming that certain ideas (about God, religion, the world) have massive real-world effects (like terrorism, war, political injustice). So, suddenly, philosophical issues weren't just esoteric curiosities. These guys were claiming your way of life is produced by your way of thinking, and that the way Christians think leads to oppression and war.

Naturally, Christians would want to defend themselves.  But to do that, they'd have to get philosophical. They would have to defend themselves in the arena of ideas.

NK: I can't help but make the political leap, now that we've covered some philosophy and religion... Iwas somewhat surprised to find another philosopher who leans libertarian on the political spectrum since I honestly don't meet a lot of libertarian philosophers (I suppose this could be due to the influence of Mill and Marx). Anyhow, I was wondering how you came to believe so strongly in individual liberty? Was that something that you picked up through your study of philosophy or was that something you brought with you?

MT: I came to be a libertarian for a few different reasons.

First: I'm a libertarian because I'm not sure I'm right. Since I'm not sure I'm right, I don't feel comfortable forcing other people to do what I say. And thus I'm surprised at other people who are willing to force other people to do what they say. How could they be so sure that they're right, when I'm not sure that I'm right?  I find it offensive!  Do they think they're better than me?

I'm a smart guy, you see; I've thought long and hard about political issues. I married a person who fundamentally disagrees with me, and go to a church where everyone disagrees with me. I can't help but think long and hard about political issues.

And yet, I'm still not sure I'm right. After all, I live and worship with extremely intelligent people who think I'm wrong! So if someone as intelligent and engaged as I am can't be sure he's right, how could anyone?

Libertarianism, of all the political philosophies (besides anarchism, which many libertarians ascribe to), takes most seriously the idea that people shouldn't force each other to do things.

Second: I was raised a "Back-to-the-Constitution!" Conservative, so that predisposed me to believing in things like "individual liberty" and "limited government."

Third: I got really, really sick of people blaming me for things I hadn't done just because I belonged to some "group" like "America," "Christians," or "Baptists" that had done something. It made me question the entire notion of groups -- and I eventually came to the conclusion that they were an artificial construct.

But if groups don't exist, then what does? Persons. Not individuals, but persons. Here, the work of the Boston Personalists, and some Catholic philosophizing about the dignity of human persons really influenced me.

(A person, for example, can need other people and enjoy traditions without ceasing to be her own person; but an individual has to be different from everyone else, has to be unique, has to be an island.  There can be independent standards for a person, but not for an individual; an individual has to follow his own rules.  And that means you can tell a person that she has to respect your rights, but you can't tell an individual that.  An individual can't accept any norms that come from outside himself, or else he ceases to be a true individual.)

The more I thought about all this, the more it seemed to me that libertarianism was closest to being right.

NK: Obviously the libertarian lens effects (or affects, I never get this right) how you read and study other philosophers, right? So, do you see any apparent difference in your own approach to philosophy and religion because of the libertarian leaning?

MT: Indeed.  First and foremost, libertarianism is the idea that politics is fundamentally secondary, that government is not and should not be central to life. Politics and government are important only insofar as they have the power to impede the real business of living.

Therefore, I am inclined to be very skeptical of any philosophy or religious system that makes politics central, that treats political life as the highest kind, or that claims a person's personhood depends in some way on the political system in which she lives, or the government under which she lives.  I find it difficult to believe anyone who would claim that a person can only find fulfilment in a political group or community (e.g., in a nation, a city, a state.).

Furthermore, being of the libertarian persuasion keeps me on the lookout for the ways in which an idea, or system of ideas, could be used by people to strengthen or expand the use of physical force (by government, or by whoever).  That is, it makes me more sensitive than I might otherwise be to the ways in which ideas are connected with power.

And, being a libertarian makes it harder for me to accept even those places in a philosophy or religion where the idea of groups might be used legitimately. I find, for instance, Paul's talk about the "body of Christ" to be hard (but not impossible!) to swallow, because of how similar it is to the (dangerous) idea of the "body politic."

So, in some ways, my libertarianism puts me at a disadvantage. So, I have to remind myself that even though I feel or believe very strongly in libertarian ideas, I am not certain of them.  I have to remember that one of the reasons I'm a libertarian is that I don't think I've gotten everything figured out. And therefore some ideas that may not make me happy at the moment, may actually be legitimate. 

NK: I think we're on the same page in this regard, and I really like how you said that libertarians are often those who have strong opinions that they DON'T want to impose on others, even if those ideas aren't ideally "Libertarian." Micah, thanks so much for sharing these thoughts with us. I really glad to have a voice like yours to learn from and brainstorm with.

MT: Thanks for the honor!

 
 

I've had a really hectic week, and thus been unable to blog... But I wanted to share two things.

First, I've been reading through John Piper's book "When I don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy" and I was struck again with the reality that idolatry comes down to a failure to really see God clearly and enjoy Him. That's why I'm certain that idolatry is really the worst sort of problem we can have...

Even more than Pride.

For if we don't have a clear picture of who God is, we'll never value Him more than our "idols."

ALSO:

Christopher Cocca, who I interviewed last week, posted his half of our interview today on his site. Head over there and check out some of our talk on Google Wave, Irony, and Sci-Fi.

 
 

This week, I decided to do a quick interview with our good friend Christopher Cocca. He wrote a guest blog here a few months back and he's beginning a Master’s of Fine Arts in Creative Writing at The New School. This week we talked about school, postmodernism, and technology. He's posting his side of the interview with me over on his blog sometime this week, too.

Be sure to check it out!

* * *
Nathan Key: Thanks for agree to let me interview you, Chris. Now, from what I’ve read on your blog, you've recently decided to head back to school for an MFA? Can you tell us more about that and what prompted you back into education?

Christopher Cocca: There's no shortage of opinions on the utility of the MFA on the web and in general. For me, it's about being around other people who are trying to do the same thing I'm trying to do: push myself to producing the best possible texts. Doing this with other writers (students and teachers) appeals to me. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't major in creative writing or English instead of political philosophy as an undergrad. And I'd still get the MDiv. I'd do it all the same as I did, including eventually going back and exploring/improving this part of what I do in a more formal, educational setting. I'm glad to be going back now, in my extremely late 20s, with a very clear focus.

NK: You know, sometimes I wish I could head back to high school and college with that clear focus you just mentioned- knowing then what I do now. Ah well… On your blog you've mentioned Postmodernism quite a bit, lately. One meme I've been exploring here on this site is the postmodern idea of "death of the author" and how media, art, and literature have been affected. As a guy who's writing a novel and working toward publishing your own ideas and stories, how is your role as a writer and storyteller changing?

CC: The death of the author is another way of saying everyone's an author. In the postmodern literary sense where reader-response sometimes is taken to trump everything, I get what some people mean, but on the other hand, with all of us social networking, tweeting, meme-ing, song-quoting, whatever...everyone is some kind of passer-on of content. Some people are creating, authoring. Some people are receiving and retransmitting. Many, actually. RT hashtag cliche. The interesting thing to me is that our references are so ubiquitous but people still think that repeating them makes them clever or interesting, that somehow repeating this line or lyric or saying this punch-line or snarky thing --- the punch-line everyone's expecting because you've heard it a million times --- makes us authors. I'm talking about general conversation here, not just the passive-aggressive what I had for lunch today Facebook status updates. And then you've got what's going on in Iran, which should really make all of us feel pretty shameful about most of the things we use social media and social networking for. Nothing in the world to say and all the freedom to say it.

Here I'm going to do it myself: we're like the Junkions from the original Transformers movie (the cartoon). Using catch phrases from television shows to navigate our lives and determine how we speak to one another. In art, this is interesting: it's open source, it's sampling, it's remixing. It's the good things about the death or redefinition or authorship.

In conversation, it's the worst. It's free time x cheap entertainment x laziness. I tend to feel this way about cliche in writing, too. So, as an author or a writer or a blogger or whatever, I try to edit all of those placeholders out. The challenge is finding new ways to say things, and I think this goes for speech and relationships, too. No one can ever play "In Your Eyes" for Ione Skye again. Think of all the tender little phrased you'd love to say to your wife if you weren't so embarrassed by them because people in movies said them first.

Maybe the problem is using other people’s art to express yourself in the first place. Sometimes it's amazing (the Grey Album, for example), or the open source art projects that are coming up. But in real life it's sort of cheesy. So I think we need to learn to make our own art for our own purposes, which is why people started making art in the first place.

NK: Speaking of Open Source- which makes me think of all sorts of free downloadable content- you've been posting some bits and pieces of your novel, Milton County Power & Light up on your blog lately. I've seen a few other authors post their books online, too- Monster Island is a great example- and I'm wondering if the future of authors is similar to the future of musicians- it doesn't really seem like musicians really need record labels, and it doesn't seem like writers need publishers. Where do you think we're heading with all this?

CC: This is something people are talking a lot about, especially with things like LuLu making publishing and delivery so easy. It seems very similar to the success we’ve seen among indie bands and unsigned artists through platforms and communities like MySpace, YouTube etc.

But while I agree that musicians don't really need record labels anymore, and while writers might not need publishing houses, they still need editors. I think that's the disconnect in the analogy. A musician can throw up a demo or a crummy song on MySpace and when no one likes it they can take it down, make it better, whatever. But if you self-publish a novel before it's really ready, that's out there forever. I think we sort of understand music as more of a work in progress in the sense that demos and alternate cuts and completely unfinished songs are interesting. Boxsets and anthology albums are full of these things and people collect the bootlegs. It's not the same with writing.

That said, just like writers need editors, most musicians need producers. But then you've got this whole crop of one-man virtual bands that do it all in their bedroom on a Mac and it's amazing. Chad Van Gaalen is like that. I guess what I'm saying is that it depends on the maturity of your talent. I know that I'm not about to self-publish a novel because I know how much work I still have to do. If I wrote a perfect pop song, maybe, I'd know it. At present, my book isn't that.

So that's the practical side of it. But there's also another difference. Releasing your own album is almost a badge of honor. When your band gets big you can reminiscence about how you put out the first EP yourself and sold it out of your car and even for people who never make it past that, I think it's all very romantic. It's cool. Maybe I only think that because I haven't done it. But there's not the same kind of vibe when it comes to self-publishing. I think most writers aren't ready to say the self-publishing has the same kind of punk ethos. Even small presses who's mission is to publish new voices or avant guard stuff have editors and gatekeepers and for good reason. Someone has to go to bat for your work. Reading an experimental novel doesn't have the same built-in viral opportunities that listening to a 4 minute alt.country track does. It's just not a viral medium. This is probably why flash fiction is so popular on the web. Six-sentence stories or one-sentence stories can become memes. That's what tweets are, and people are using Twitter and Tumblr and Facebook for this kind of viral lit, mircostories, koans, whatever.

NK: Of course, none of those writing forums pay really well, either. I know from past experience that a band might be able to make money from live music shows or T-shirts. But writers don’t really have that sort of thing…

CC: As far as a paycheck, at the moment, I think it's more about building social and artistic capital than actual capital. But publishers will find a way to make more money than they currently are off of the kinds of things you're talking about. Writers will too and a few already are. Present company excluded.

NK: OK, last question. Who'd you bet on if Stephen King and John Grissom were up against each other in a cage match?

CC: Neil Gaiman.

NK: Nice.
* * *