Changes

As (quite) long-time readers may recall, this blog was originally started as a place to discuss my dissertation progress as well as mentioning odd bits of church practice and politics.

Over its four years, it’s gone in some different directions than I first envisioned—some logical and predictable, others less so.

I’m not ending the blog, but the time has come to make some changes as I think about how it fits into my available time (which has diminished and will continue to do so) and my future goals.

One of the things I enjoy about this blog, though, is that it doesn’t seem entirely mine… That is, I think there’s an interesting community here. My observation is that a number of sites—especially those that advocate certain positions—tend to fall into the trap of becoming “echo chambers” where like-minded people go to agree with other like-minded people and have their positions and prejudices reinforced. While there is no doubt that certain common affinities draw some readers and repel others (honestly, how many Haas & Haugen enthusiasts are regular readers here?), I think this group has evaded a simplistic “echo chamber” mentality. I treasure that and would like it to continue no matter what the site looks like going forward.

All that’s to say, I’m quite open to your thoughts about what kinds of things you’d like to see here and what directions you’d like us to head in.

Posting will likely diminish for the near future, but I hope to have something solidified by Advent.

This entry was posted in Administrative, Community. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Changes

  1. bls says:

    I hope you do continue posting from time to time at least. You’re one of the most interesting (and knowledgeable!) people I know; I’ve learned many, many things by reading your stuff, and would love to continue doing so.

    But, if it’s taking up too much of your time, I’m sure everybody will understand that, too. One thing I like about the blogging, myself, is that it gives me a forum for working out issues that are in my head anyway. (On the other hand, I’ve cut way down on the rants and things lately myself! I guess I’ve lost my edge somewhat. ;-) )

    Anyway, although I’m sure I’m not alone in hoping you’ll continue to write, at least a little, I’m also sure that most of us will simply take what we can get. We know a good thing when we stumble across it. (Actually, this all seems so Serendipitous anyway, doesn’t it? It’s interesting that so many of us have “met” without ever having laid eyes on one another. I do appreciate that, too….)

  2. Oh–no worries; I’ll keep writing… I’m just trying to figure out what, how, and how often.

  3. Scott says:

    I could imagine this becoming the 1979 Prayer Book Society. :) Only half kidding!

    But mainly I’d like to put in a vote for your thread dealing with BCP spirituality a la Martin Thornton’s writings. As we hear from various points in the blogosphere things like “failed experiment” regarding Anglicanism, your writings in this thread have pointed to what Prayer Book catholicism has always been and can continue to be, even if many Anglicans themselves have not yet appreciated this.

  4. brian m says:

    I would second Scott’s suggestion. You’ve posted some on reconciling Thornton’s ascetic theology and the ’79, in order to foment a robust modern Prayer Book Catholic *praxis*. Why not say more about that–and about using the BCP as a de facto “rule,” and about the Benedictine spirit in a PBC praxis . . .

    Also more on “affirming Catholicism” and theological arguments for same. No matter what side one is on, I think we can agree that the theological exchanges have been found wanting on all sides.

  5. Thanks, Scott and Brian. Those definitely do sound like directions I’m going to head in.

    I’ve never quite swallowed the “affirming Catholicism” label. The few members of the group that I knew a while back truly were liberal protestants who liked dress-up and that wasn’t where I was.

    I am liking what I’m hearing about the new American branch of The Society of Catholic Priests—a group that includes a number of my readers, I believe—which exhibits the kind of faith I think we’re both talking about.

  6. Michelle says:

    I’m sure you will find interesting ways to move your blog. I’m debating where to take my blogs now too since I seem to have gotten out of the habit. I hope you continue to blog on your medieval work on one of your two blogs. I can say from personal experience that blogging on things medieval is a great way to keep thinking about medieval stuff when you don’t have time for more complex medieval projects (papers, books etc).

  7. Michelle says:

    Off topic but I did learn in the last month that Springfield (IL) will be formally opening nominations for the episcopate in Lent 2010. Suggestions welcome!!

  8. bls says:

    Oh–no worries; I’ll keep writing… I’m just trying to figure out what, how, and how often.

    Oh, well – in that case: Biblical studies, please, if you’ve got ’em. Any and everything is interesting to me….

  9. Joe Rawls says:

    I’m definitely with you vis a vis the ’79 BCP and the kind of Anglican Catholicism represented by the Society of Catholic Priests. So a site focusing on issues of that sort would pique my continuing interest.

  10. Nodding vigorously to your fourth paragraph, Derek. As I like to say, many of us aren’t in communion (so of course no echo chamber) but we all (the community here at haligweorc) seem part of the same big Christian movement orthodoxward and of course Godward. It’s no surprise that Episcopal Café’s most Catholic writer is advancing that in his blog.

    BTW the SCP’s website is beautiful. How to make a site about high church. (Why doesn’t Trushare/New Directions in England, trushare.com, have or hire talent like that? Their site looks like it was designed by a beginner… in 1995. FiF’s, forwardinfaith.com, is marginally better which isn’t saying much.) Only one technical glitch so far: the margins became too wide when I tried to read Fr Cobb’s welcome letter.

  11. bls says:

    (I’d also like to continue to discuss the texts of the chant propers, and thus the original sources (some Biblical, and some – as we have found in the past – extra-Biblical and very interesting).

    I’m not sure how that gets categorized, though. I guess I’m interested, generally, in writings of all kinds about the life of faith. I’d like to hear more about your diss stuff, too – the Gospel in sermons and all – if you feel like you can post it. (Are you going to publish it at some point?)

  12. Ooh—yeah, that totally fits in with where I want to go, bls.

    One of the convictions I’m going to lay out and work with is that The work of New Testament interpretation is not complete at the level of reading. That is, finding or locating an interpretation is simply an intermediary step. New Testament (and broader biblical) interpretation is complete as it shapes, changes, forms, and informs our habits. Therefore, Scripture as it appears in liturgy, preaching and ascetical theology in order to inform our ways of being in the world.

  13. ambly says:

    I’d be curious about your thoughts vis a vis a comparison of Affirming Catholicism and the Society of Catholic Priests…

    And thanks especially for hosting a place where folks of differing perspectives can have a civil exchange.

  14. bls says:

    Ooh—yeah, that totally fits in with where I want to go, bls.

    Oooh, great! ;-)

    (I’m really just hoping to continue picking your brain, because there’s so much good stuff in there….)

Comments are closed.