Blogging can often seem like a one way “broadcast”. The blogger writes up what interests him or her, posts it, and waits to see what happens. There are many posts, essays, books and articles out there advising bloggers on how to cultivate more engagement with their audience. I have even written a few posts encouraging other Indie bloggers. Indeed I have on more than one occasion argued that we need to be engaging with one another more in the OC/IC community than we currently do (or seem to do). There is however, a notable entropy in blog audiences. A quick survey of the overwhelming number of crackpot and thoughtless comments on the more lively blog comment feeds is enough to encourage any blogger to turn commenting off completely, and thank God for some peace and quiet.

Every morning I trawl through my various feeds and sources to look for interesting items that might be relevant to Indie life, or a snippet of an essay that inspires me to write a post. I enjoy this, don’t get me wrong, but this is still a one sided process. I am choosing things that interest me. There is therefore a bit of a bias, and perhaps because of it I’m not writing posts that could really be interesting not only for me as a writer, but also for you as the audience. I need to find a way to break through the one sided-ness of blogging, to make this less of a broadcast of my ideas and reflections, and more of a conversation with readers, whoever you might be. The basic idea then is for readers – yes, you – to “suggest a post”. I don’t care if you are a regular lurker who silently enjoys poking around the site, or someone who is merely passing by and wants to “see what’s under this rock”, I am inviting you to ask a question or suggest a topic for a post. Who knows, it could be your suggested topic that really gets a conversation going, and I believe that that would be a good thing.

Because successful blogs have a niche that they stick to, and because there are plenty of crackpots out there who just like being cyber-wankers (can I use that term in polite company?) this little project needs some structure, a few parameters to maintain focus and cultivate conversation. So when you are formulating your suggested post, or question please do so with the following in the forefront of your thinking:

• Keep it relevant: your suggested post or question will only see the light of day if it is relevant to Christian theology or practice, and it can be addressed or explored from an OC/IC ISM perspective.
• The importance of being Pith: If I need twenty minutes to figure out that there might be a question or suggested topic tangled amongst the morass of words, then it is unlikely that your suggested post will come into being. Keep your suggestions to three (3) sentences or less. This should be fun, engaging, and not painful for everyone concerned.
• Rudeness will be rewarded: It goes without saying that all thoughtless, rude and spurious suggested posts will be deleted, and you will be banned from commenting in future. Yeah, its harsh, but the goal is thoughtful conversation and not eating our young, or complaining about other communities.

If your suggested post is selected I will drop you a note and let you know when to expect it. This by way of pointing out that no anonymous comments or suggestions are accepted. Occasionally a suggested topic might be best answered by someone else – or by more than one person. When that happens I will reach out to that person and ask them to contribute a guest post (no guarantee that they will agree to it, but I will ask all the same). Generally I try to keep my posts short – between 300 and 500 words. As this post is already pushing 1000 words you can tell that the “ideal” is not always practical. If the answer to your suggested post is substantial I will do what I can to break it up into easy to read chunks. While the long-read movement in social media is gaining ground, I appreciate that many people are overloaded with posts, articles, and videos and aim to make posts here as easy and informative to the reader as possible (barring of course the limitations of my own skill, or lack there of, in writing).

One of the stated aims of this blog is to get the audience talking, and to encourage Indie folk to think and create outside the usual limited set of topics. I don’t want this to be a mere broadcast of my ideas and interests. Your suggested topic or question might be the spark that starts a very productive exploration of an idea or issue Indie folk generally don’t see or touch upon. If this trial run works then I will create a permanent page where you can suggest a post at any time. For the moment – at least once every two weeks I’ll “re-post” this post or reference it. While I am hopeful, I doubt that I shall be inundated with suggested posts. I will be happy to get one a month, happier if it is more, and ecstatic if it means that the actual posts results in a real conversation. Now its up to you, what would you like to read in a post here?

Check out Will Meyer’s new – well new to me – blog on the indie experience over at Vagrant Vicar. And if you know of other active indie bloggers you think we should be reading by all means drop a note in the comments.

Still working on the annual “re-decorating” finding the options and possibilities slightly over-whelming, but aside from that there is the very real issue of the visual “face” of the blog says a great deal about the blog. Over the course of the past few years the feel of the blog has (as you would expect) evolved, I hope for the better. I suspect what’s really happening here is that I’ve not sat down to consider the “what now” factor – where is the coming year of theo-blogging going to take us.

I unexpectedly fell into this post, which led me to this post and it made me stop and think for a moment. Does blogging matter? Should “every” Christian blog?

I have been God-blogging now for four years (I have another non-theology blog too) and average just over 100 posts a year.

I would like to think that during this time I’ve passed through the novelty of blogging, into a tool, an arena of asking questions, and playing with ideas. I would also like to think that I’m not just talking out loud, or worse – to myself.

Throughout this experiment in thinking out loud theologically I think I’ve learned how to be more focussed. Though I am breaking the “custom” with this post; generally limiting my posts to around 300 words has helped me “stick to the point”. I think I’ve also become bolder expressing my thoughts on OC/IC issues more directly than I think I would have 10 years ago.

Do my “stats” reflect the hope that I’m not just talking to the empty ether? Do the stats actually matter? How much of what goes into the blog happens off screen so to speak? I average between 300 and 400 “unique visitors” per day who, on average stick around for 3 minutes – long enough to read the most recent post. I’m not entirely sure how to “read” that. At least 10% of that figure are un-desirables (I’d say the word but my “un-desirable” filter will go through the roof for the next four days – you know what I mean).

And what about the level of commenting? As with many blogs, understanding the nature of commenting is un-predictable. Blog readers tend to lurk. They have an arena of blogs they read regularly, but rarely comment. I know this because I read dozens of blogs a day and almost never comment. Sometimes I’ll have an exchange with someone and they’ll say: “Oh yes, you wrote something about that on your blog some months ago.” Clearly getting others to “join in” the conversation is harder than it seems.

But then, when you do get readers commenting you sometimes find yourself having to quickly get a degree in mediation and abherrant psychology! A quick look at un-moderated comment streams, will demonstrate this point nicely. Comments are a double edged sword.

So the numbers and off screen interactions say people are reading – even if there is not the river of comments you’ll see on some other sites. While the stats give a fleeting glimpse of what is happening they clearly don’t give the full picture, and as interpreting the numbers is a fallable exercise, I’m not about to waste time fretting over them one way or the other.

I could keep a theology journal and find that I’m becoming a better writer – I don’t “need” to blog. Indeed I only started blogging because I noticed other indie folks doing it! The numbers can only tell me that people are visiting, and even reading posts. It does not tell me that they are interested, engaged, or are in any way benefitting from my God-blogging. So, is my “talking out loud” contributing to the mix of OC/IC engagement? Does blogging matter?

At this point I think I’m going to refine the question: Does God-blogging matter in an OC/IC context? I think that on reflection the only answer can be yes, it does matter. Regardless of what I or others might think of the content of any one particular Independent Catholic blog – more OC/IC people ought to blog (and blog thoughtfully).

There are not enough thoughtful Independent Catholic voices in the public sphere. There is not enough awareness of, or active development of OC/IC theology and scholarship – only we can change that. Through blogging we meet other OC/IC folk, make friends, and begin the much needed and very important process of collaboration – building a continuity of short and long-term projects, as well as helping one another with individual projects. Blogging offers the perfect platform for our small communities to sit together and push the boundaries a bit, and develop and practice some awesome theology.

Blogging has the potential of making resources that are currently stuffed in drawers and boxes, resources which are all too frequently lost when the current holder or steward dies, available to the wider OC/IC community – to our researchers and scholars, as well as to a small but growing community of academics who are interested in the history and development of the OC/IC movement.

Blogging takes discipline, and it is a committment. Thus, the thoughtful blogger participates in ministry and outreach, sharing his or her experience of life in the OC/IC community.

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.