“Why Quaker 2.0?” Series is Comin’


After my horrible post about “Why Quaker 2.0?” I got to thinking about why I really think that Quakers need a 2.0. The journey has been a significant one for me and has challenged many of the ideas I had when I first started putting this blog together.

In the next few weeks I’m going to start publishing a series that attempts to explain why we need a Quaker 2.0 and what about it would be different. As each new part of the series comes up, I hope that all five of the readers of this blog will take a moment to respond and add to the dialog.

So there - I’ve set a deadline. Now it’s time to finish those posts.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
February 14th, 2006
4 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Blog

Other Posts
Shot in the Header
Their Own Version of a Big Bang

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Aaron
Posted on:
February 15, 2006 at 4:11 pm

I find that deadlines only help if there is someone else applying pressure, so hurry up you lazy bum. What would Jesus do?

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Christopher Frazier
Posted on:
February 15, 2006 at 9:01 pm

Stop pushing me! Why do you keep pressuring me?!?

Oh wait… thanks.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
wess
Posted on:
February 16, 2006 at 2:44 pm

I am also interested in the Idea of 2.0, I am in the process of trying to pick up a similar conversation on “convergent quakerism” as initiated by Robin M.

Here’s the link if you’re interested:
http://talking.gatheringinlight.com/

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
Christopher Frazier
Posted on:
February 16, 2006 at 3:01 pm

Wess - I’m glad you popped in. I’ve been meaning to Bloglines your feed, but I kept forgetting. Anyhow - you’re now firmly established in my Quaker folder.

I’ve loved Robin’s term “Convergent Friends” because it really does describe well the Quakers who are taking the good from other places and finding some common ground in faith that still demands radical expression.

One of the things I’ve been dealing with in writing my series is whether or not Quakers should exist as a sect or if we really should be submovements within other groups. Part of that has to do with an understanding of the early Quakers’ impact on England (in both religion and politics) and how that was lost in the New World. In fact, many of the real theological problems Quakers still have stem from the lack of counter-balance that being Quaker in a vaccum brings.

What are your thoughts about that?