I have often written individual rants inspired by concepts gleaned (or ones that “jump out at me”) from The Cluetrain Manifesto. They are very Theoblogical, or theological rants become blogs, but nevertheless go to the core of my theology; specifically a theology of cyberspace for the Church. That is, that conversations are holy. In them we discover the treasures waiting for us in one another, a nd the power of what happens when our callings come together to make something great happen.
This is central to the Cluetrain philosophy, except that I say amen and say that is what everybody is searching for. I just believe that the Church is here to fulfill that purpose: to help us discover, WITH each other and amongst our commitment to the conversation, what it is we’re all about, and what it is we’re supposed to be doing. It is discovery of CALL, and that’s what the Church is supposed to be equipping us to do.
If the Church could focus more on “What we are called to do” rather than “what we must believe”, people would hold much higher opinions of God and the idea of the Church, because the Church would be in the business of ENABLING people to exercise their gifts. MOst often, we have no idea what those are, or that we should be trying to discover them. Blogs have been the best expression for a diversity of “passion” to be offered to “whosoever will”; common interests and concerns become strong magnets for conversations that are so frequently and sadly missing from our Churches.
These conversations are also so full of energy, that we can’t get enough. We go until our eyes are dim from staring at screens, reading, typing, reading some more, perusing through News Reader lists for the latest thing that has struck the fancy of someone who struck our fancy with something they wrote months ago. There is presently no structure I know of being employed by Churches which makes this kind of “checking up on each other” so accessible. It is a form of accountability. You feel it for your audience, be they 5 or 10 , 50 or 500.
Hey Dale–you going to be near NJ anytime soon? 🙂
BTW, re: “That is, that conversations are holy.”
Not all conversations are holy. Dig my friend of a friend’s seminary paper:
http://www.mychurchonline.org/Academic/SeminaryPapers/Gossip.htm
…an epistemological view at the motivations of gossip. Anyway, it made me think a little at the implications of en masse digital conversation that blogging enables. Not all of it is good, but I wholeheartedly agree that the church’s current modus operandi to supress it is suicidal.
Ken,
I guess a better way to say what I was trying to say in “Conversations are holy” is that without the “possibilities” that are inherent in conversation (the possibility of I-Thou encounter between and among people among whom God is present), then we miss out. A lot of the conversations that COULD be and should be taking place in the Church are not because there is lack of opportunity and lack of awareness that people are thinking about similar things. The Weblog is one of the best “testimonial” tools I have ever used , both as a contibutor and a “contibute-ee”. There have been more conversations, soul-sharing, and the like via the Blogosophere than I have seen and heard in years of attendance at traditonal gatherings, who have all but forgotten the value and the holiness of conversation.
Yes, for sure, there are “exchanges” that are all but “holy”, and so I might argue that I speak of “dialogue” in its purest sense; where one Human encounters another, and in the midst of that, God works.
On the other note, I don’t expect to be in NJ anytime soon, but starnger things have happened. You expect to be anywhere near Nashville? Or Cincinnati?
Anyway, as always, I appreciate your frequent “visits” to my life via the blog, and I enjoy my frequent explorations on yours.
Dale