Post 3: Future – There are conversations here that need to continue. Where are these conversations going to occur in the future?
posted by Brian at 10:08 AM
CGGC in an Emerging World
The world is changing rapidly. Postmodern thinking is increasing in the west and the East is becoming part of the Global community. Many in the Churches of God General Conference are interested in what church will look like as fresh expressions in the 21st century. This blog has been encouraged by the CGGC but in no way reflects the official thinking of the denomination. It is a place for free flow of thought and conversation.
Monday, January 02, 2012
14 Comments:
I've appreciated and been challenged by the conversations that have taken place here.
There aren't too many blogs that have been perpetuated by various different 'authors.'
It's interested that the idea of emerging has really fizzled out in the church culture.
My #1 problem with this blog (not anyone here's fault) is that the participation has been so lacking (in breadth, not depth).
I agree that the conversation needs to not only continue but expand. Perhaps in a format that will make others more inclined to participate.
My ideal (although unrealistic) would be for someone to start a site that had a forum to better thread ongoing conversations in different areas that would draw in a Much larger number of people wanting to both think deeply and live the Jesus way practically. Perhaps also with a section for short articles to be submitted or a blog component.
This would require someone with the technological willingness to set up such an infrastructure.
I guess the alternative would be another blog or a series of individuals' blogs linked together somehow.
I'm not sure Dan's idea is that unrealistic. Basically what he's seeking is a moderated and edited forum that provides a place for focused discussion on a wide-variety of topics.
I'm not sure it's as much a technological issue as a vision issue. If the person who created the blog functioned as the editor he/she could guide the content while inviting specific people to contribute on certain topics.
From my vantage point, this would provide a level of credibility if the editor had the credentials/reputation required for such an endeavor.
At first, one person controlling the content would be a departure from this blog but overtime I think that readers would appreciate the consistency in content and quality. The conversation would come in the comments section. There could also be an avenue for people to submit ideas for the threads. A new post every week would not be that unrealistic. Each month could also have an invited contributor who could possibly be added to the blog list. In my mind, the bios of who these contributors are would need to be added. This format would not work if the blog was seen as an "anyone can post any idea" site. I am not suggesting that didn't work on this blog, but Dan's idea would add a level of formality that could ultimately be very successful.
The first step for this would be to identify what characteristics are necessary for an editor/creator. Additionally, that person would need to create the title and focus for the blog. If this was done before this blog was closed down, the transition would be much smoother.
Just a few thoughts.
Brent - your thoughts are solid.
However, I think that it is a big undertaking and would need to have someone with the vision to start and follow through with it.
I would love to continue the conversation but don't have the desire to give to an editorial task myself.
It would be great to see serious articles (like a missional e-journal) but what I would most like to see personally is a forum (not a blog when anybody (they would have to register a user name and be approved) could most missional or theological questions / thoughts / challenges (specifics of living Jesus' way).
One question that I would like to (and might) ask is to inquire of regional and denominational leaders if there was a type of online avenue that they would be willing to participate in.
In my view, if there was a broader commitment to participation, it would make it worth the energy.
(there probably is some financial cost invoved as well depending...)
Or if we go more simply, perhaps there is a way to create a new blog that will move us forward.
Dan,
Let's see what everyone else thinks as well.
Thanks for your feedback.
dan, you said:
what I would most like to see personally is a forum (not a blog when anybody (they would have to register a user name and be approved) could most missional or theological questions / thoughts / challenges (specifics of living Jesus' way).
i'm sorry, but i lost you somewhere in there. i think there is a good idea(s) there, but i'm having trouble understanding it so condensed/punctuated. could you rephrase that?
brent mentioned in the complaints thread about anonymity.
i think i can see at least a bit of both sides. there's something to be said for being free to write and express ideas without fear of reprisal. on the other hand, at least some of the time, some of the reason for wanting that is cowardice, and responsibility for ones words is important. perhaps a middle ground is to have a registration that can be pseudonymous, rather than pure anonymity, but this may be the worst -instead of the best- of both worlds.
what think you?
I'm talking about a forum like any other forum for any other subject. But with our areas of discussion.
If there is fear of reprisal (and I suppose there really is), it is a sad statement about our body.
To build upon the idea for a moderated forum...there could be a main editor with something like associate editors representing the APEST model. Each associate editor could be responsible for either writing a specific post or finding someone to serve as a guest contributor for that week. That way, each of the various perspectives could be represented.
Not sure if there would be any interest or even if it would work, but it would provide more balance for the ideas.
Dan,
From comments made on the blog a few years ago there were some people who genuinely felt that they could not post their names for some reason. I don't know if there was a real threat or just an over-sensitivity to what other people might think. Either way, some who posted comments no longer appeared once anonymous comments were prohibited.
I supported Brian's decision to make that change, although I disagreed with that choice.
Walt,
I think clarity is important so I supported the decision to eliminate anonymous posts on that ground. If Brian's header for this blog is accurate (which I believe it is), then we live in an age of postmodernity that is filled with confusion and contradiction. Within such a moment there needs to be a clear delineation about expectations within organizational life.
Having said that, I also support the notion that all Truth is God's Truth. Honestly, I don't care whether someone posts a name or not as long as their idea contributes to the conversation. There were some people along the way who shared their name and were hostile in their comments. Most who were anonymous were gracious with their words. The bottom line for me is that comments need to be constructive, whether supportive or in disagreement. The name attached is not significant.
I've never met you or Dan M. and many others who have posted here. I have no personal way of knowing that you are actually named Walt or are who you say you are. For me, I think the fascination with eliminating our anonymity has more to do with a limited view of how a computer-mediated forum such as this changes our message.
That's what I believe today. Ask me again in five years and see what I think then. As the internet continues to evolve I am open to the fact that my views may change as I/we gain a greater understanding of its impact on daily life.
Brent, I'm ready to start participating as soon as you get it all set up. :-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
From Brent:
From comments made on the blog a few years ago there were some people who genuinely felt that they could not post their names for some reason. I don't know if there was a real threat or just an over-sensitivity to what other people might think.
Two words:
SHEPHERD
MAFIA
And, you think I'm kidding!
In our hearts, we all know that it really does exist.
I've been shepherd-whacked dozens of times in my 35 years. Others have been too and don't want to be again. Still others are perfectly aware that it could happen to them and are protecting themselves.
It seems that the existence of the Shepherd Mafia justifies anonymous posts. But, for me and my house, we'll just keep getting whacked.
I'm sure that what bill says is true.
However, I refuse to accept that someone would seek reprisal for discussions of truth and faithfulness at following Jesus together.
I always seek to honor and respect those in positions of authority, and everyone else as well.
I simply refuse to accept the reality that we would not be allowed to speak. (But would I be so bold if I felt a real threat in some way ??)
That's why I'm for real names on this forum.
The problem with 'online' media is that at times people tend to speak quickly, rant, etc. If someone has an issue with another person, this is not the place to vent it.
But for larger issues that challenge the status quo...
Post a Comment
<< Home