The thing about blogging is that most people still don't understand its power yet. It is power sufficient to make new networks or break a traditional organisation.
The church that I work in has always been an early adopter of technology – electic light, organ etc all arrived here before they arrived anywhere else. Predictably, they took on someone who was into internet technologies, resulting in an early church website (not a website about the early church, don't be silly!) and what I think was probably the first blog in the Scottish Episcopal Church. (I'd be interested to be proved wrong about this).
I've always held that the net is about people not information. Blogging has the power to bind such interesting networks that I am surprised that some still have to be told what it is. I know that my sermons and daily posts are read from coast to coast in Scotland and in the US too. Who can do that without the net?
Most blogs are drivel, of course. But that is the point. Once you find someone you know or someone who writes about something you are interested in, you are already an insider.
I cannot remember who it was who realised the potential for political blogging by posing the question “Could a blogger become [US] President?” Perhaps it was www.andrewsullivan.com – I don't know. What is the equivalent question in the church today – “Could a blogger become a bishop?” or “Could a bishop become a blogger?”
Leave a Reply