I just realised this morning that we’ve been working on this project, we call the “Theo-blog” for four years and . . .one month (well 4 years, 1 month, and 3 days) now. Happy birthday blog!

When I started this experiment back in April 2006 I never imagined that it would have the staying power that it has had. Why? Because blogging is fickle and most blogs are created, and abandoned within the first year or so (at least that’s what I’ve read) – and I did not expect that our effort here would be any different from “the norm” in this regard. Try it, see what happens, learn from it, maybe make some new connections with other interested folk and move on. That was the attitude I had coming into this.

So has it worked?

Well, yes, after a fashion. Through the connections we’ve made we’ve made new contacts in the Indie community. Through the process of writing, reflecting, and engaging with others doing the same thing about the same topics I’ve come to better understand the “why” and the “process” of some elements of theology and the history of the OC/IC movement. It has also occasionally made me think about things in entirely new ways, as well as changing my mind on long held assumptions.

So here’s to another four years, one month and three days . . .

Reuters reports (Wed. 10 Feb 10) that the Synod of the Church of England criticised broadcasters – the BBC in particular – for the steep reduction in “religious broadcasting”. Claiming that this actively marginalises religion and treats religious programming as “freak shows”.

I’m sitting here thinking about the report and a few things come to mind about this. First – what qualifies as “religious” programming? Is it historical/documentary? Is it an exploration of current theological trends? Is it a balanced presentation of the positions on a current issue from the perspective of different traditions? Or, is “religious” programming praise, preaching, and televised services?

I think it is very difficult to get the shape of a program right in both categories. The BBC recently offered Diarmaid MacCulloch’s excellent History of Christianity. But much of the “documentary” programming on historical and current religious issues falls into the realm of thoughtless agenda pushing, or mind-numbing “lets stick to the script” surveys. Both extremes neither inform, nor encourage deeper interest and exploration. Then we have the worship/service category – and the “flagship” show for this here in England is “Songs of Praise”. I don’t know about you but from the perspective of one in the sacramental/liturgical tradition this sort of programming . . . is simply awkward. When I lived in the States there were often channels that televised the Liturgy once a week. “Watching” the Liturgy is not the same as “participating” in the Liturgy – it becomes an anthropological exercise rather than a participatory experience. I think if I were a non-liturgical Protestant, it would be less awkward because preaching, prayer, and praise can easily be done regardless of the environment (though I suspect if that’s your devotional bent – it is still more comfortable to be in the presence of others, sharing the experience).

Aside from the occasional well designed documentary, or exploration of a particular topic within a given tradition, or among various traditions – religious programming is awkward. It seems to me that part of this freakishness is as much about context as it is about content. Simply televising a worship service, or liturgy is not good religious programming because it takes that “experience” out of its natural context and plops it in the viewer’s lap. Something else, something more tailored to the media is needed – and that almost never happens. Even Songs of Praise – which clearly makes an effort to do this – does not quite make it.

Something like 50% of internet users connect to their faith tradition on the web. Because the net is relatively “novel” individuals and communities putting the good material up are tailoring the shape and substance of their presentation to better fit the medium of the internet. The benefit of this avenue of presentation of course is that the material can be produced for different audiences, within the spectrum of a tradition, and not be pigeon-holed to suit the lowest common denominator so as to attempt to “make good TV”. The medium throws open the doors to better quality material, more in-depth exploration, and the possibility of graduating from the mere bullet points of an issue to a developed presentation of the finer points; allowing the viewer to stop and start as needed.

I stumbled upon this “tip” regarding scheduling one’s use of Twitter. I use Twitter, but only on a limited basis as most regulars might already know. But it did spark an idea relating to God-blogging.

If as part of on’es God-blogging one were to “assign” an idea, a theme, or similar to each day of the week, or possibly each week of the month (allowing for more in depth exploration?) it might take the project in unexpected (and hopefully rewarding) directions.

To be sure my own posting has been a bit dry of late; due in part to scheduling, and to a lack of inspiration in the usual quarters & sources. My community’s project of re-visiting/reforming the festal calendar for our indie-centred use is fine but it is not the sum total of what we do here on the site (though I know it seems that way of late). Perhaps a planned cycle “might” be useful? While it may not work here, it might be useful for you.

We have been exploring the use of the net, and technology generally in an OC/IC context here for over a year now. But one thing that has not yet been mentioned (I think) is the idea of “media literacy” in OC/IC projects. This article by the Utne Reader – brings that idea crashing home.

The article highlights the issue of critical analysis of what we see on the web. How information is presented, and how we sift through it, assessing the veracity of that information, its accuracy, and its agenda. I suspect that when most of us were younger we were taught how to do this with “traditional” media sources – books, newspapers, magazines, journals, and film and television. But the nature of media has changed rapidly, and dramatically over the past decade – does this not also mean that the way in which we assess these sources must also change?

To my mind this is a topical issue on two fronts. Firstly – how we OC/IC folk using the net, assess those sources related to theology, history, spirituality, and religious news. How is that process affecting how we use the information both online and in our communities? Secondly – and I think I find this more important based on things we’ve been exploring here – how are we presenting our information online? Are we facilitating a sense of good critical analysis of who and what we are? Are we pointing to balanced source material? Are we presenting our message in such a way that the information-saavy will not simply click through, snorting “Quacks” as they do?

How can we help one another to make the web more of a tool and less of a novelty, or “basic” necessity in our various projects? One way might be to be helpful to one another. A bit of “peer review” amongst friends can make those seemingly minor changes that have a big impact in how our sites and vids are recieved, found, and commented upon.

This morning’s rounds turned up two curious pieces of news.

Firstly, FaithLab reports that Daniel Akin, the president of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary  wants Baptists to have more babies – in order to numerically overwhelm the growing Muslim population in the US. Europe – he suggests, will be taken over by “the Muslims” without a shot being fired because “white” people are not having babies. It’s merely a matter of simple mathematics – he argues. Ummmmm, yeah. . . . no, not so much. It is however, a matter of oversimplification, racism, and a misguided belief that quantity equals quality. There are too many impoverished children in the US as it is (check here and here), too many children and teens go unloved, and undervalued. As I understand the Gospels Jesus taught us to value one another, to invest in real relationships, and to be hospitable to the stranger because in the “space” in between those interactions is where we meet God “in the flesh”. We ought not to care about their particular faith tradition – rather we ought to “be” Christ for them and relieve their suffering. Pushing for more babies in a society that has very real problems providing safe, healthy, balanced lives for the one’s it already has is grossly irresponsible.

Secondly, the Barna Group has released a survey that has some interesting numbers – which might be useful for OC/IC communities. Here are the ones which grabbed my attention:

• 75% of Americans believe that God is “motivating” them to seek communion with him through new methods and experiences.
• 64% are completely open to pursuing faith in an environment that differs from a “typical church”.
• 50% are bored with the “typical” church experience
• 71% are likely to develop their religious beliefs on their own – rather than accepting the slate of a particular church.

These figures would appear to support a position that I’ve been promoting here for over a year now, and that is that more and more people are using the internet to explore their faith; eschewing to one degree or another “traditional” worship settings and experiences. This means that OC/IC communities MUST have a thoughtful, creative, active on-line presence if we are to bring our frequently “alternative” experiences and methods of being church, being community to those seeking to engage with their faith in new ways. I should add here that such efforts would probably be more effective if we strive to not mimic the efforts, and style of “Big Tent” churches but develop our own methods highlighting the creativity and talent of our individual communities and missions.

The survey also raises interesting questions about our methods of outreach on the ground. That is, how are we sharing our story, our way of faith, in the flesh, with the people we meet? How are we going out to meet them? Are we simply repeating the methods of the churches many of us originated in; if so what might we do differently? Maybe, we could make the whole process easier and just have babies?
Finally, I’m writing this from the UK – the home of the modern heathen – so I’m sitting here wondering – what would the numbers look like if Barna did the same survey here?

Rummaging around PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly this morning I fell into this report from this past November exploring religion on-line that I had not previously seen. The report is interesting because it looks at a number of real-time examples of how more than 1 in 4 adults are now using the internet solely or in part for their spiritual needs.

A group in one congregation lived according to the rules of Leviticus for a month, and journaled their experiences on Facebook. A group of friends – through the process of mourning for one of their number – slowly came to appreciate the spirituality, and exploration of theology – in a a safe environment provided by their conversations online (I think they too were using Facebook).

I’ve been banging on now for over two years about how new tech, like the internet, can be a powerful tool for OC/IC communities, writers, and explorers. This well done report might inspire, it may even lead you to ask more questions about the how to, and the affects it might have on existing projects in your community.

Ok, so we’ve talked a bit here about the effect of social networking on religious communities, and outreach . . . . well . . . have a look (and a giggle over) this.

When I first encountered Twitter over a year ago, I frankly thought it was a naff invasion of privacy and walked away. I’ve since done some reading, observing, and re-thinking and . . . well. . . I’m “tentatively” changing my mind. Indeed I figured that it would be useful to give Twitter a fair shake (much as I’m doing with Facebook).

Much of the reading I’ve done that links Twitter to ministry hails Twitter as a great tool – emphasising how it can point to relevant content, re-iterate current topics, and spark discussion and reflection. In relation to OC/IC use, it is easy to see these points working well – even in our smallest communities.

Twitters ability to quickly spark discussion, opening new avenues of exploring a topic, serves two useful functions in our context. Firstly it gives fodder for developing a post on the community site/blog. I’ve already had some success with this. Secondly Twittering on new or evolving points of exploration invites curious strangers into the conversation – and therefore becomes a medium of introducing people to the OC/IC world. Assuming they don’t then encounter some of our nuttier “co-religionists” some of these strangers might in time become friends and members of the living/embodied community.

Twitter is also useful for making flash announcements – for spontaneous gatherings (lunch, exhibit, discussion at coffee house that’s just so interesting people might want to stop by and join in). I’ve not tried this route yet – but would really like to hear from people who have.

There is definitely something working within our OC/IC context that inhibits engagement generally, and sustained engagement particularly. I am not entirely certain what this “something” is, I have some working theories and would very much like to read yours. However, I find it disheartening to compare our sites (or lack thereof) with, for example, Episcopal, Gnostic, or Eastern Christian sites. Where theirs are hopping with activity – some of it interesting – in our corner it’s a dark, silent night in a cold empty desert!

I know that there is an overflowing well of creativity, thoughtfulness, and energy within our community; mainly because I’ve spoken to, emailed, and Facebook message swapped with so many of us. I am also fully aware that there is a quantity X99 of Nutters in the movement; but folks, I’ve got news – we are not unique in this arena, EVERY tradition has them – the fact that so many nutters also have web sites admirably demonstrates the point. While we don’t have the institutional mechanisms to rehabilitate nutters, or when needs be to dispense with them, we do have an effective tool at our disposal: a voice of sanity. Through engagement, collaboration, and friendship we can build a positive momentum that will not only express our best OC/IC voice(s) but which will create solid resources serving the needs of our communities. By cultivating this positive momentum, the quality OC/IC voices will collectively overshadow the ranting and antics of His Most Serene Holiness, Grand Pubah Mar Elijah-Athanasios-Vilatte XXIV and act as an effective form of quality control.

Encouraging conversation in God-blogging is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the project. You’ve got your niche, you’ve developed a discipline of writing, and you know people are reading it because your stats tell you so. Why then is there relative silence on site? Over the next few posts I’ll try to draw together some tips from the pros, and from the experience of working on this site.

A regular posting schedule gives readers the confidence to keep checking in, and to keep contributing with their ideas and responses. It keeps the conversation fresh, and the momentum going. It builds “community”. Without a regular flow of new posts, new ideas to explore, readers stop visiting (or visit less often), conversation stops, and before you know it – your vibrant interesting blog is quite dead.

Integrating regular posting into your blog-discipline takes a little thought. A blog collective (multiple authors) will have an easier time of this than a single author site.
Keep in mind that you’re aiming for a “base-line” X posts per week (or for the more ambitious X posts per day); anything over that number is a bonus. Be careful not to overwhelm your readers with posts – just as it takes time for you to produce them, it takes as much time for readers to digest, and hopefully comment on them (here is where the word limit discussed earlier comes into its own). If they feel it is too much work they’ll either go silent, or abandon your site altogether.

I keep a folder of half written posts, ideas, and notes (often gleaned from your comments). I sit with these pieces and develop them over time – but they also come in handy for those days when I really don’t have the time or energy to make my rounds of news and theology sites for inspiration. This bank of posts ensures that I can stick to the discipline of writing and posting without being overwhelmed myself.