: online status :

« Emerging Church on the road... | Main | Sorry a non-humble moment! »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yes, for God's sake don't start a named network!!

well it took you long enough to take the BAIT

i thought you would have complained much earlier

as i said to you at high leigh, if you were not such a great blogger and one who is now a TRAINER of missions bloggers for a highly recognized mission organisation, i would not have targeted you for my humorous out of context paragraph.

some people are just more fun when flamed up.

LOL... Like I said... I know your a wind-up merchant! You missed my 'Dinosaur' jibe tho' ;-)

Seriously though... the vibe that you were joking about... is evident to me in the conversation (not from you) particularly in regard of post-grad stuff! What worries me most is that there will be nothing about the EC left to research ;-)

Good to see you... even if you were trying to wind me up... and really cool to meet Karen and Ryan!

was nice to see you last week
was interesting to be there as a bit of an outsider, thanks for pointing out who was who.

i did get lost in that whole diagram thing but was interested in the comments about named networks becoming elitist. i'm caught on the problem of inclusivity. generally i find church intimidating, hierarchical and elitist and EC hasn't stood out as being particularly different, but i think this 24 hour thing was maybe the best i've felt at a church leaders type thing (so nice not to be the only eve).

i feel connected both to what you've said about the danger of named networks and also what others said about naming/intentionality actually making the conversation more inclusive, but as i've processed it more i don't think it has to be one or the other. there isn't really any reason why inclusivity can't be organic, maybe it just is that the people who naturally network with 'the other' aren't interested in networking with hubs - could these be the random monkeys the unofficial/illusive network needs?

Correct me if I am wrong, but surely this network already exists? Otherwise how do people know of Blah, or your blog, or even go to the 24 hours?
In my view this network is largely unnamed and should remain this way. To name it is to automatically invite people in to it and thus be exclusive of others.
I think that the network is also largely web based. At the moment there are a number of websites and blogs that people can connect with. These places have individual voices that allow anyone to engage and thus maintain a conversation. Even if it is not intended, with the naming of a network and creating specific roles within it, the professional class will be created and this will begin to create a separation between the professional and ‘ordinarys’. Surely this is just to start down the path of the type of institution that many in the emerging movement are discontent with?

In the light of all the 'family talk' around the subject - has anyone checked the Wikipedia entry?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Creative Commons License
Creative Commons ©