It’s become tradition for me to end the year with a look back at some favorite posts from the preceding year, and the end of 2009 should be no exception. Not only does it allow me to highlight some good content that others may have missed, it lets me reflect on the year just passed to outline some of the pertinent topics of conversation and what may (or may not) have changed over the last twelve months.
We started off in January with the launch of Missional Tribe, which was foretold here (and elsewhere) as The Missional Cat Emerges from the Bag, followed shortly after by the launch announcement, Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Missional Tribe is Open! Where we’re at now with it is that the spam volume has proved all but impossible to manage without an excessive amount of manual intervention. As a result, we’ve now shut down the ability for new members to register or create a blog without contacting an administrator. The seven instigators have not been able to be as deeply involved as was perhaps required and the community isn’t quite self-sustaining yet. We still believe that a community with this model is viable, but we’re considering how the Tribe site should evolve next.
Otherwise, I began the year with some good metaphor asking Where are the Doors to the Church? Once wasn’t enough, so that post also resulted in The Church Doors, Revisited. Allow me to say this is a crucial question for any church to grapple with if they have any concern for the spread of the gospel.
I found out in January that I had been accepted into the 9 Rules Network, which is quite a notable network and I’m proud to have been included, as I noted in 9rules: networks++. I closed out the month with Depression & Words of Hope and The Third Man Factor, reflecting on a book I wouldn’t read until the summer. I then cruised through February with “Absolved by Attendance” (an abandoned de facto standard) and into Lent with an idea about indulgences for Lenten Offsets?
February also saw a post On the Validity of Virtual Community, which continued to be a topic of discussion elsewhere throughout the year.
Into March, I offered Early Thoughts on a Missional Renaissance, from the title of Reggie McNeal’s book before getting into the Decline & Fall of the Evangelical Empire, a topic started by Michael Spencer. Shortly after, there was a thought or two on The History & Future of (Consumerist) Christian Theology, which shifted a bit of blame off of evangelicalism.
The War on Wisdom takes a look in part at potentially how legalism functions and thrives. This brings me up to April, when my April Fools’ post, Recommending & Monitoring CLB Changes, got me in trouble again.
For Easter, I wrote about The Holiness of “Place” and followed up with a look at the crucifixion through A Centurion’s-Eye View. The following week I joined a group trying to answer Hey, What’s the Good News™? I gave some virtual ink to Emerging Fractures & the Great Emergence. Finally in April, I was Grappling with the Story Arc of Scripture and considering a fall curriculum for the kids in our house church.
May and June were something of a transition period. In June, I ended my long-running series Then Sings My Soul: The Hymns of My Youth with Hymns of My Youth #106: The Greatest Hymn Ever Written and launched a new series, Hymns from the Radio Dial with Streams of White Light into Darkened Corners, followed by the first selection, Radio Hymns #1: The Lord’s Prayer by Sister Janet Mead.
Of course, one of the most notable posts of the year just might have come at the end of June when I posted I’m Not a Monk, But I Play One on the Internet, in which I confirmed my non-pseudonymous identity.
Still this was overshadowed by my June 13th Urgent Prayer Request: Rick Meigs, in which we announced that Rick Meigs had been in a very serious (life-threatening) motorcycle accident. This was a significant event not only for Rick, but for some of us around him virtually who called Rick a friend, but were at a distance and could do little but pray and blog the updates. So that’s what we did. The process, I think I can say, taught us an unexpected lesson about virtual community… but more on that later.
Already in January (just after joining 9Rules), I noted in Watch out for Tumbleweeds that I was now allowing myself to let a day pass without a blog post, something I’d not really done since I began this blog. In March — Tiring, isn’t it? — there was a growing malaise around blogging in this particular conversational circle, and I was feeling it too. By early May, In Which I title my Post like Sarah Bessey Does, I revisited the idea that it was difficult to blog daily, and I was already skipping the odd day. By late May, it seemed that like many others, I was losing my Blogging Mojo. Many people identified with this feeling — not about me, but about themselves and their own blogging frequency. By August, the terminology I was using became Cessationist Bloggers, Or Something Quite Like It. By then I acknowledged that I was in the midst of a kind of blogging sabbatical, but that I had no plans for an exit. I thought I’d be back in the fall, but on November 30th I actually missed my 5th anniversary of blogging on this site. Of course, I’m still blogging once in a blue moon or more — which, incidentally, this is. Literally, as in today is literally a figurative “blue moon.” Still, blog posts for the remainder of 2009 were mainly collections of Random Acts of Linkage and the odd little update, like my Christian Bookstore Odd-essy and the Blessing of Hands or asides like Memorizeth thy Scripture.
And that brings us up to November and December, during which I began to feel the gentle tug to write more on this blog. Not the volume I’d been putting out up to the spring of 2009, but still.
November held The Great Emergence Postscript and Post-Great-Emergence, two posts on the one-day conference with Phyllis Tickle that was held here on Reformation Day. I and a few others participated in a panel discussion and gave “workshop” sessions. Phyllis was a riot.
Then there was Encountering Harry Potter, in which I riffed a little on my finally reading the Harry Potter series this year, and finding it much more enjoyable than I’d expected. Oh, and Lord Voldemort is an INTP, just like me. And Alan Hirsch.
I opened December by Considering The Didache in preparation for my interaction with a chapter from Tony Jones’ new book in The Didache: on Living Together in Community. I kept up a bit of blogging momentum (if you can call it that) with another riff on Compassion, Justice, and the Manhattan [Project] Declaration.
As the year winds up, I look back at the list of posts and topics and make just a few observations. First, the question of virtual community hasn’t gone away, and the debate has only intensified. I actually have quite a bit I want to say on the subject, and hopefully — keep your fingers crossed and your prayers ascending — I’ll spend a bit of time blogging on it in January.
The other notable point is a set of changes in what the emerging church is, how it’s defined, who’s a part of it, who still uses the term, and a plethora of other notes. Being the end of a decade, people are also tending to look farther back and farther ahead as well. On this topic, I’m saddened that within the emerging church, people who shared a pulpit at the beginning of the decade won’t share more than the time of day at the end of the decade. Though some of them will spend some time in criticism. You know who you are.
As I wrap up this look back at some of the notable posts around here this past year, I’m hopeful that I’ll be able to resume blogging a little more in the new year, as I have a few larger topics that I want to explore. This might (I don’t know yet) mark a shift in tone here as I’m reading far fewer blogs and thus interacting on the topic-of-the-day a lot less. We’ll see what happens. As for the prognostications I really want to make, I’ve got a post percolating in the back of the grey matter that I plan to try and translate here soon.
That said, so long, 2009!
Subscribe Posts
January 1st, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Whadda year! In a year where half of my time was eaten by illness, yours was one of the few blog voices I tried to read on any kind of regular basis. I appreciate what you have contributed to the ongoing attempts to blog the journey of whatever it is that we are calling the movement(s) whose waves we’ve been riding. Thanks for your efforts … and I’m looking forward to your thoughts on virtual community in this new year.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
All God’s people say, Amen. It really bugged me me when people started weaving Tony’s personal life into the comments.
But as to the content of Tony’s post, I’m sort of caught in between, I get it…and I don’t get it. The marriage thing over the past couple of years, it’s been like flogging a dead horse. Every election it seems to raise the hackles of the church. It’s on a very short leash, as to it’s effectiveness. It’s barks, and tries to bite but doesn’t cover much ground. It’s a red herring, the pinnacle of morality for much of the church. Brother…maybe you can tell me as to when marriage be came a mandate for the church. Maybe if Jesus hadn’t served so much wine at that wedding in Cana, we might have a better picture of the details ( just Joking ). In my mind it might be best to let the State, licsence and take care of the legal side of it…and let the Church bless what they want. I know in my own marriage of 33 years, the legality, the paper work side has never ever been it’s focus. It has never been what keeps it together. There have been times when I’ve had my bags packed by the front door. But it has always been the profound divine covenant that my wife and I made with each other in the presence of God. There is something beyond imagination, a bond like the physics of intermolecular forces in that covenant of marriage. Let the State have law of marriage…let the church lay claim to the grace, the imagination and the bond of that covenant. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is his. But, again Bro’ this might be all hot wind. For as Buck said, ” I don’t know. I don’t speak wind.”
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Ron,
I’m confused as to why Tony’s personal life would NOT have a bearing on what he’s been saying. Perhaps you could unpack this for me. (This is not an attack as I value you as a gracious brother in Christ.)
I am profoundly pissed at how easily people break the marital covenant – but still want their opinions front and centre on the topic of marriage. And when the wife of your youth and, no doubt, your children are in profound pain at your marital breakup, this might be a good time to step away from the spotlight, step off of your soapbox and submit to some wise elder counsel.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Bill, you have absolutely no idea about the details of my personal life.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
To all readers: this post is unabashed gossip. Anything based on rumor and innuendo is, by definition, gossip, and therefore sinful. Indeed, it borders on bearing false witness.
I urge you to take whatever action you deem appropriate when you ate confronted by sinful behavior. I have.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I’m sorry Tony but your story is splashed across a million pixels in the Twitter, blog and interwebbed universe. Predominantly by you.
Removed an ad hominem bit here — Bro.M.
Just a reminder that I’d like to refocus the discussion onto the pros and cons of what Tony suggested in his post rather than aspects of his personal life. If there’s a time and place for that kind of discussion, this isn’t it.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
For clarity, I’ve tried to remove references to the rumour and criticism *in the post* that Tony refers to in the comment above. I don’t think he means to say that my interaction about the refusal to perform legal marriages is gossip, since that’s the point of his post. The same may not apply to the comments.
And again, the topic of the conversation following will be the point of Tony’s post on performing legal vs. sacramental marriages.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Ron,
As long as the church gets the wine in the deal, eh? ;^)
I agree that it’s rarely the legal aspect that weighs in on making a marriage “work”, but the sacramental one… though I’ve seen people apply a legalistic approach too often to a sacramental bond. (Still think the difference between an annulment and a divorce is pretty thin.)
I’m thinking the merger of the two was simply expedience, but I don’t know for certain. Somebody has to witness for legality, so it turns out to be the clergy. Or the JP. Or the captain of a ship, maybe?
Wish I could speak “wind.”
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Bill,
The way someone’s personal life would / would not have a bearing is probably that it may reflect on why they said something or how they might have experienced it, but that isn’t always directly related to whether or not what they’re saying is valid.
Just a thought.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Well … I’ll give my two cents on Tony’s list as well. I’d hate to put something on his blog for fear of being (virtually) shot by his followers. And that is the thing I find most disturbing about this whole controversy. It’s not who said what or when or to whom, but it’s the lines in the sand being drawn in the comments by people who appear to be claiming sides. I’m not interested in sides or, who is following Tony and who claims Andrew, and who claims Apollo … I’m interested in reading that which will assist me in following Christ. I thought the ECM was about finding a third way, not defending one’s turf. But I could be wrong.
* There is no “historic” institution of marriage; it has been a fluid concept for thousands of years, changing with time and across cultures
Well … it depends on how one defines marriage. If one is defining marriage by current Western standards, then … this would be a true statement. However, every culture currently and in the past has some form of ceremony which solemnizes and creates a unity between two people; most generally speaking, a man and a woman. Most of us wouldn’t recognize the “marriage” ceremonies of other cultures, but they are no less binding within that culture.
* Our society has determined that monogamy is good, so we incentivize it in various ways
I’d disagree with this. As a part of the animal kingdom (mammals) human beings are (again, generally) monogamous and mate for life. Yes, there are (sub)cultures which allow polygamy, but those are not generally well accepted amongst the mainstream of the larger world population. Yes, I do remember Muslims in this. Some few Muslims continue to practice this, however, there are very stark restrictions on a husband’s ability to marry and keep a second wife and they are limited to four. The majority of Muslim husbands have only one wife. It is becoming less and less acceptable.
* It’s a plain reality that gay and lesbian couples are among us, and they’re not going away
True dat … but it’s also true that alcoholics are among us and they’re not going away either. So do we allow them to continue to kill themselves and create untold emotional havoc on the lives of their families without doing something? I’m not drawing parallels between alcoholics and homosexual couples, I’m just saying that this reasoning is specious. Just because something exists amongst us, it does not necessarily follow that we we need to promote, encourage or otherwise do anything to make things easier for it to occur.
* So let’s afford them similar incentives toward monogamy by allowing them to enter the binding contract that we call “legal marriage”
I actually agree with this, except for the slightly distasteful insinuation that homosexuals somehow **need** an incentive to remain monogamous. I know several homosexual couples who have been monogamous for years and years without the incentives that Tony speaks of here. Many of them would be satisfied with being allowed to have civil unions.
FTR, I agree with this because I see it as a step which will help strengthen the marriage bonds because it will negate the need to give benefits to non-married couples who have been living together. This way, the state can again promote the state of matrimony without discriminating against homosexual couples. So can large (global) companies such as Disney and the like.
* This will not implicate what any congregation or denomination considers a “sacramental marriage”
The civil unions that some states currently perform (e.g. Vermont) do NOT currently implicate what any congregation or denomination considers a marriage. There is not one church in Vermont which has been forced to perform civil unions because of the law. Really, the whole hoopla over marriage is a tempest in a teapot which is encouraged by people (politicians) with less than pristine interests at heart.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 6th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
I don’t have anything to add to the comments on any side, I just have a question.
What makes a marriage in the eyes of God? Does it need to adhere to the culture in which it exists? Does some ’set-apart’ priest need to perform some ritual? Or can a man and a woman [or same sexed - not getting into that debate] just decide to consummate themselves to each other?
As the ‘un-churched’ Christianity continues to grow, with the emphasis on the equality and the priest hood of all believers, is there a possibility that this is being raised or will be raise?
Just some thoughts that were raised as I read these blogs.
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence
January 7th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
i find this discussion very intersting… I have been thinking a lot about marriage, and the deconstruction of our legal institutions surrounding it when I got married myself (living in a country where only the state can perform marriages) and I have a more realist view on marriage (see http://bramboniusinenglish.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/the-emerging-joneses-and-my-anarchist-marriage/)
My controversial and unorthodox opinion is that marriage is too important to let the state define it, and that it’s already been defined by creation. (Just as Jesus went back to creation and not to the -godgiven- laws of moses when the pharisees tried to trick him in a divorce debate) and I think in a world where the legal marriage has not much meaning and is irrelevant (as it is here in belgium) that we Christians should be able to show just with our lives the value of marriage, and to let our vows be lived out. Let our yes-word be a yesword!!!
The whole current Emerging church situation is getting too complicated for my poor mind… But I pray whatever happens, that God will be able to use all for the advance of His Kingdom… It’s not about Emergent/ing/ence but about His Kindom!!!
shalom
Bram
This comment was originally posted on Subversive Influence