Commerce is a natural part of human life, but it has become increasingly unnatural over the intervening centuries, incrementally divorcing itself from the people on whom it most depends, whether workers or customers. While this change is in many ways understandable — huge factories took the place of village shops; the marketplace moved from the center of the town and came to depend on far-flung mercantile trade — the result has been to interpose a vast chasm between buyers and sellers. (p.10 The Cluetrain Manifesto)

Danger for communications:  As official statements and pronouncements circulate on the denominational communication channels,  the process of “chasm building” mentioned above can take place.  Only where there is an intention to spark “dialogue” can these “opinions” of the world of “experts” really have an impact. 

For me,  to “feature” the “offical pronouncements” and provide no link to encourage dialogue is a bity of a heresy.  It is to promote the idea that this stuff is not profoundly related to the “theological process” which us neccessarily “lay” and “grassroots”.  If it remains an intellectual assent thing;  if the people receive notices (like “memos”) of what “the bishops say”,  apart from the “call to conversation” ,  the subject matter is in the process of being “de-voiced”;  in danger of becoming detached and irrelevant.

The Cluetrain authors are advancing a “recovery” of voice for commerce.  They’re not “against” commerce.  Trade must happen.  But the most effective,  persuasive aproach is to bring the “one on one” and “many to many” back into the equation,  so that the there is a vast pool of “evaluation” information that comes not from the manipulative drivel of the mass-marketer,  but from users who speak the language of interest group who seek such products.  In the Church,  the “market” is multi-level:  the members,  seeking rersources for their ministries,  the “observers”: the ones who are involved and attending but whom the Church is hopefully seeking to invite to deeper involvement,  and the “world out there” to which “outreach” is extended;   to find ways to “invite them into the community”.  In all three,  VOICE is crucial.  The membership are more susceptible to the “church-speak”,  because of familiarity with the “theological language”,  and so unaware of where this terminology may lack voice.  AKMA alludes to this:

It sounds little and hollow, but people can tell–that’s part of the Cluetrain affirmation, and I’m on board with that. Not that no one can fake integrity, but that corporate-speak and ad-speak don’t even begin to try, and in church circles growth-speak and (what to call it?) goopy-pious-speak don’t communicate integrity either. |Integrity from AKMA’s Disseminary Blog

  The best way to overcome this is to enable and encourage the proliferation of voice by building online places which encourage expression and dialogue.