Comments on: A De-centralized and Emerging Ecclesiology

By: ck

ck — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:48:40 +0000

Oh, sure, I wouldn’t expect you to claim that (nor would I!). But if he wrote you back, then under my interpretation of “relationship”, you have one. Under your definition, you wouldn’t. It’s the philosophy training in me that wants to parse out the implications of that distinction, but I won’t take up any more space on this thread to do so.

The initial points you’re making about the Emerging Church, global missions and flattened leadership deserve the focus here. Best to you as well!

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:36:57 +0000

@ck: I read Paul’s letters, and I’ve never personally known him, and I would never claim that I had a relationship with him. I actually peek in at conversation he had with others, through letters, and that peek informs me in a way that results in changes in real time and real-time relationships. A conversation is not a relationship, be it in a letter or through the internet, unless the conversation is an extension of an already established real-time relationship, but that is beside the point. It’s good to hear from you. I hope all is well.

By: ck

ck — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:30:33 +0000

Gotcha. So you are making a distinction between conversation and relationships. I still disagree (I’d say the apostle Paul had relationships with people via letter-writing, for example, even those he hadn’t met), but I see what you’re getting at. Thanks for clarifying.

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:27:49 +0000

@ck: It’s limited to the discussion and development of theology, which is something that leads to real-time changes. That makes these conversations very practical and very real. In other words, it’s a conversation that is resulting in very real and significant changes in local relationships, methodology, and practice. It is still, however, a conversation. It is a conversation that has real effects on real-time praxis and relationships. This fact prevents it all from becoming an echo-chamber. I still believe relationships can only occur in real time. Conversations can happen almost anywhere via any medium (smoke signals?), and can be inter-personal, real, and framed upon deep and open willingness to cause change. The difference in this case is the boundary-less nature social networking via the Internet provides. It’s never been done before.

@Ben: I’m glad you are back! Yeah, they’ll most likely fall down all on their own, so better to direct your energy towards positive things. :)

@Bill: Post-Christendom = Christianity, as it was known, is no longer the defining entity of society and/or culture. Christianity now exists in the margins, as something less than a spiritual authority. Some of us think this is a blessing because Christendom reflects very little of the values associated with Jesus’ Kingdom of God. Hope that helps! Feel free to ask more questions if that isn’t clear.

By: bill weaver

bill weaver — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:11:38 +0000

Interesting. But, what do you mean by: “Will the missional priorities of our faith be celebrated in authentically post-Christendom contexts?” “Post-Christendom” is what’s giving me the trouble here. Thanks.

By: Ben G.

Ben G. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:04:55 +0000

Thanks for drawing attention to these articles, Shawn. I think I’m coming down from my “let’s tear down all the churches” mentality and coming to see things very much as you and countless other believers are.

By: ck

ck — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:16:22 +0000

“These individuals are all living in different locations all over the globe! The conversation is, however, inter-personal, real, and framed upon an open and authentic willingness to deeply explore the theological question at hand.”

Shawn, how does that square with what you wrote here?

Have your views changed or do you think that there are certain characteristics necessary in online conversation to make it “real”?