I am a firm believer in the idea that a little knowledge is dangerous. When you overhear a conversation in which one person says to another (imagine whatever derisory accent adds to the flavour-I always seem to hear Watford…):

"Yeah, ever since I watched that (insert celebrity TV show) the other day, I gave up (eating, drinking, buying) + (wheat, white wine, bleach…). Really makes you think, donnit?"

I always, always wince and imagine having the temerity (or bad manners) to break in with questions about the speaker’s level of intelligence, trust in an over-paid celebrity, or belief in a ridiculous cult of misinformation. Allergies seem to be a favourite topic in these conversations, I’ve noticed.

I find the proponents of these ideas far more galling, however. Dieticians, ’scientists’ from dubious academic associations, ’specialists’ and ‘independent consultants’: all these people ruin their very titles for the proper holders. Worse is when people go off half-cocked and make a mint selling their partially-formed philosophy.

I have just discovered a new breed in the person of Lee Siegel. I will, in the interests of transparency, state that I only heard about the man today, at about 16:30, and I know about him only what Wikipedia does, so not much, and therefore have only a limited platform from which to wince and whinge.

Having been reading Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, I’ve begun formulating a few thoughts on what some have called the ‘emergent church’.

Because I work with the internet, I tend to see things from an ‘online’ perspective. When I see a presentation, I ask why it doesn’t link to resources and I tend to Google answers and keep many tabs open with on-the-fly further reading on a subject. One of the most wide-spread of all internet buzzwords is "Web 2.0". The ideas behind it have been summed up (indeed, coined) by the O’Reilly network. To me, many of these have a strong resonance with the ‘newly painted church’ of Mars Hill. For example, there is an emphasis in Web 2.0 on participation and "The long tail" which I see reflected in "every member ministry" and discussions instead of sermons. Teaching has taken on a very interactive flavour, and theology is less about rules.

While the tag ‘Church 2.0′ is wildly inaccurate on one score (e.g. there have been many renditions of the church), the notion of a renaissance is definitely present and many of the tenets of Web 2.0 can be helpfully used as metaphor in the church.

Participation vs. Preaching:

With links to various incarnations of the ‘Cell’ movement, the idea of discussion supplementing or even replacing pulpit-sermons is certainly not new.