Response to Philip Clayton's post on Theology After Google

I just spent way too long typing out a response to Philip Clayton's blog post on theOOZE (a site that I rarely frequent and that I only checked out in this instance because Jason at Sustainable Traditions recommended it.) only to find that my comment wouldn't go through.  Aaaarrrgggghhh!!!! (No Wonder there were no comments posted there yet.)

So I'm posting it here, mostly because I don't want to let all that work go to waste. (I don't even know that what I wrote was even decent, but still, it's the principle of the thing that counts here. If I spend that much time pounding out a reply, someone should have the opportunity to read it.)

i was shocked after reading through your article to see that there were no comments after you'd specifically asked for comments!  if some sites can get hundreds of idiots to reply their their posts, then this post should at least get the comments of one idiot.  

so here i am.   ;-)

(hopefully there's not 10 comments waiting in moderation before mine making me look like even more of an idiot once they all go through. *sigh*)

i suppose i'm left, after reading your article, wondering who you're talking about.  if pastor's are no longer authorities, is that because non-christians no longer see them as authorities? or because our churches have grown into mass media spectacles where you simply can't have a personal relationship with your pastor in which you can talk out theology and life in such a way that you build a relationship and respect for that individual and allow him to speak into your life -- to have some level of authority?

i'm a member of a small church (in a denomination that's been around since the '60's i think, when it split off from a mainline denom). i read blogs right and left. i write about my own spiritual journey and i feed my intellectual and spiritual self in a plethora of ways (from books to online posts to online communities). and i don't see my pastor as a host at all.  he's a teacher and a pastor.  he prepares information for me to digest, cogitate on and discuss.  he's the authority because he's the one spending the time it takes to research and delve into the topic in order to present it to us. granted he's not just stuffing facts and rules into our spiritual gullets. there's a lot of conversation and interaction. but he's guiding us, not hosting us. he's teaching us.

i also think you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy.  you're saying there's what church was and what church is becoming.  but what church was wasn't always church.  in my opinion it was far more common as recently as 30 or 40 years ago for churches to be filled to the brim with people who didn't believe a word of what they were hearing. they hadn't chosen to follow jesus. they were just "going to church" because that's what you did.  that's not church. ok, so it is, but it's a very different definition of the word than i think either you or i would mean by it. and how much "authority" did any pastor/clergy have in that case? they had neither authority nor were they a host.  they were just part of the ritual that people went through on sunday mornings.

i think i also balk at the "we're not in kansas anymore" overall idea to the post. yes, in many ways the internet is changing our world dramatically.  and yet people are still people and relationships still involve talking and interacting and probably having a bite to eat and something to sip on while you're together. in that sense, things are still very much the same.  church is made up of people learning to get along with each other despite differences, learning to love self-lessly, to care for each other and so on.  that's not internet stuff.  that's the same sort of thing that the church has been doing for millenia.