Church historians will tell you that we had
- The Apostolic Period (29 - c.100)
- The Patristic Period (c.100 - 325)
- The Conciliar Period (325 - 787)
- The Holy Roman Empire/Scholasticism (754 - 1309)
- Babel
Babel happened for a couple different reasons, most notably the papal schisms of 1378-1417, followed by the Reformation a century later. Since then it's been schism after schism, with each schismatic group deeming all other groups unorthodox. Protestants consider Catholics heretical for praying to Mary or believing that the sacraments exclusively impart real grace. Catholics consider Protestants heretical for breaking from apostolic succession.
And internecine schisms are the order of the day. The Vatican recently silenced a Jesuit theologian who has written a book attempting "to express traditional doctrines about Christ and salvation in a language appropriate to postmodern culture." Meanwhile, a Southern Baptist who does not adhere to biblical inerrancy feels unwelcome at the communion table with his co-religionists. The last century has been one of each brand of Christianity sinking deeper into their own echo chambers. Attempts at ecumenism have been futile.
But the social web promises to change all of that. Christians are climbing out of their denominational silos and listening to Christians of other flavors. Some are even (gasp!) listening to the wisdom of other religions.
I really do think that we'll enter a new age of theological discussion and even consensus, and it will be made possible by new media.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Maybe instead of proclaiming with self-importance that those who are adept at utilizing the social media will form the new orthodoxy, we need to be asking how the social media we use will transform how we go about deciding what is and is not orthodox.
Also, the question of orthodoxy seems to assume a centralized hegemonic state or church, which doesn't exist unless you think that the new hegemony is the web. Certainly the web is a very powerful tool for communication and developing people to think certain ways and interact certain ways, but I'm not sure if it's hegemonic...yet.
I don't know that the last line of the post (social web manipulators win) is so much a theological statement nor even a preference but a reality of the way power/influence shifts.
This would be based, in my small opinion, on how we (the West) keep swinging our 'source of truth' from idea to person to idea to ... (Classical to Medieval to Modern to ...). I would differ with the post in that I don't believe it is those who are _committed_ who have the power. I think it's much less than that. I'd propose that it IS the social web that will define truth: the synthesis of a swing back to a 'personal' source of truth and the unwillingness to give up our position as The All-Powerful Individual developed in/by Modernity.
- I won't submit to a Magisterium, but I won't submit to truth-by-rationality-alone.
So I'm left with the reality of living as a social being, with just enough autonomy to not loose myself as self-god: social-web.
So is revelation the next "sola"? Would love to have you write on this, Tony.
I am really new to the ideas and groups of the emerging Church movement,so I hope my comments are not based on simple misunderstanding. I read Tony Jones' term "social web" as being the "emerging conversation" on line. If this is the meaning, yes I do disagree with the statement that those who dominate or are committed to the social web will become the new magisterium. Those who are fascinated by the power of the social web overestimate its power. In spite of the power of this medium, religion and certainly Christianity
manifests its power primarily in the local physical community of worshipers. Those physical communities are still dominated by the traditional religious power players, preachers, church boards, bishops, Popes and Patriarchs, etc. Certainly the emerging church if it is successful will perhaps institutionalize as a counter power to
these older powers. But I do not see it as replacing those traditional powers.
Glenn
I only recently discovered this blog and only now have I finished reading all of the comments inspired by Tony Johnsons provocative remarks. The level of conversation has been remarkable high from all sides on the discussion that followed. In particular, while I suspect that I would disagree with her theologically, I particularly admired the realistic tenor of Maya Bean's comments. On the issue of whether the social web is going to totally change the way religion is practiced in human society, I think that yes the internet and new communication technologies certainly will change the way many people relate to religious ideas and communities. Millions of people will be involved in new non traditional levels of religious experimentation inspired in part at least by the new communication media. It will certainly be much harder for the old orthodoxies to keep control of their flocks. However I suspect that the vast majority of people will continue to follow the orthodoxies of their mothers and fathers. After all after the 18th Centery Enlightenment and the publication of Charles Darwin's books stating the Theory of Evolution one might has suspected the days of ideas of biblical inerrancy and direct inspiration were finished. For what became liberal Protestantism and Catholicism it did. However the majority of both Roman Catholics and Protestants still believe in the older traditional theologies. Glenn King
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.