Sun 28 Jun 2009
Blogs are a vehicle for participants in the sample to reflect on the practices of Christians in relation to those outside the church. It is also a place to retell personal experiences of meeting others in ministry, ask questions and share knowledge.
Generally these bloggers are suspicious of programs and activities that attempt to convert people to Christianity, or attract them to come to church. For a start, having everyone come to church will not necessarily make the world a better place. Also, the motives by which the programs are implemented are under scrutiny. Bloggers question the packaging of spiritual goods for consumption and edification (and profit) of the supplier. The “God-shaped hole” rationale, which treats everybody as “needing the Gospel”, is viewed by bloggers as arrogant and judgmental. Bloggers believe there is not much good in Christianity that people haven’t found in other religions and spiritual practices. The converse is also true; history shows that Christianity has much to be held accountable for.
This is why a small number of bloggers have played with term “apologetics”. Bloggers accept that their faith is on trial by wider society, they seek to learn from others how to right previous wrongs, search for common objectives, and strive for reconciliation. In a few posts some bloggers have retold the experience of the Desert Fathers, recalling a historical period when, like this one, Christianity needed a defence. For these emerging church bloggers, the culture wars between Christendom and secularisation is over, and Christendom lost.
The primary task of Christian mission is service. This may involve offering resources to communities in need, caring for individuals who are marginalised in these communities. They wish to see themselves not as missionaries to the lost, but fellow travellers, who carry the same questions, and are willing to find answers in others. Christian mission is as much a quest for self-transformation, and renewal of the church, than it is a call to reform larger society.
These voices, then, do not use blogging to rally the troops, or convert people to their way of thinking, but as a confession that their experience of Christianity is not all they have wanted it to be, and that the world they know is not the same world their churches think it is. They call out for alternative methods of thinking and doing mission, and seek to engage non-Christians in the discussion. Perhaps there is another paradox to be noted, that in the use of new technologies these bloggers seek a return to older, even ancient, conversations.

June 29th, 2009 at 06:13
You say “Bloggers believe there is not much good in Christianity that people haven’t found in other religions and spiritual practices.”. I’m not convinced about that (but could be on the strength of more evidence). I think that, while there is quite a bit of ‘reactionary’ rhetoric amongst some of the groups you’re working with, there’s also some deep assumptions that they hold that they perhaps don’t realize they still hold to.
Anyway, I look forward to reading the whole thesis at some point and seeing the data. Should be illuminating.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:35
Hey Stephen,
Good to hear from you.
I think I have some data to support this. If you like I can email you something.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:48
Well, this blogger still sees Christ as having something unique to offer.
I would say I engage with more alternative spirituality seekers than most bloggers and I see nothing wrong with ‘respectful’ disagreement. We can learn from them, sure, but they can also learn from us, and do. You don’t have to be an apologist for Christendom to be a witness for Christ.
July 1st, 2009 at 00:02
Hi Matt,
I would tend to say that there’s a difference between Christ having something to offer and Christianity having something to offer, at least in some of the posts and discussions in the data.
I totally agree with your second comment there, especially about being a witness for Christ against an apologist for Christendom. Did you read the opposite in my post?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:04
Paul
You seemed to be equating Christianity to Christendom to a degree that was uncomfortable for me. For me Christendom is imperialized Christianity, nationalized Christianity, politically partizan Christianity, and the very fact I need to add these adjectives to the word “Christianity” to describe “Christendom” implies that there are and have always been expressions of Christianity that involve none of these things. That is the sort of Christianity I find my home in and I think that sort of Christianity does have something different to offer. Having followed a few religions in my time that has certainly been my experience in any case. At its most authentic, Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than following Christ, so I am uncomfortable with hard distinctions between Christianity and Christ. Instead of challenging Christendom and Christianity in the same breath I am more inclined to challenge Christendom as a “less authentic” and “politically compromised” expression of Christianity. I wouldn’t get down on Christianity as such.
The same goes for what you’ve said about “conversion” and “the gospel” and “apologetics”. The fact that these have been corrupted by Christendom does not lead me to cast them off. On the contrary, I have written extensively on “evangelism beyond Christendom” and “humble apologetics”, seeing these as essential practices for a post-Christendom Christianity. I would disagree that “the primary task of Christian mission is service” as I don’t believe in silent witness (and probably woldn’t be blogging if I did). What I believe in is holistic witness of hands, mouth and feet.
Also, I am also wary of the distinction you make between “renewal of the church” and calls “to reform larger society” because I see the church, when acting authentically as a contrast community, as indeed issuing a call to social transformation by its very existance. Christianity has not erred by being public, it has erred by conforming itself to partizan politics. Christianity has not erred by openly challenging injustice, it has erred by seeing legislation as a spiritual tool.
Part of what I see missing in your critique is a distinction between Christian (spiritual) conversion and Christendom (cultural) conversion. A significant part of my own journey was learning the difference between the two, opting for the former while rejecting the latter. Part of what helped me work through this was Paul’s word to the Galatians, his criticism of Hebrew Christians who sought to circumcise Gentile Christians, his warnings of how deeply that compromised the gospel. So in summary, I still see non-Christians as needing the gospel, but we need to ensure it’s the Christian gospel not the Christendom gospel.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:48
Yeah that makes a lot of sense, when looking at the data. though I think what you say about apologetics isn’t different from what I was saying.