There was a conversation on theologians and blogging culture that I had with Sivin Kit previously. I shared about the incident of an established academic theologian once asked me and my friends, "Would you spend time reading blogs or Wolfhart Pannenberg's books?"
We did not answer him as we were not sure. After a short moment of silence, the theologian said, "You don't really have to choose; of course it's Pannenberg."
Then I realized that it was a rhetorical question as it was asked with the assumption that we would reply, "Pannenberg."
I felt the need to clarify. So I opened my mouth, "But for many, like myself, learn about Pannenberg through blogs." The theologian agreed before he insisted, "Yes, only as an exposure. Blogs are written by any person (read: 'nobodies') and lack the substance as compared to struggling through Pannenberg's systematic theology."
Sivin, a theologian himself, said that if he was there, he would ask the theologian why Pannennberg's works are more substantial compared to theological blogs? Sivin believed that the degree of substantiality depends on how relevant it is to a person within his/her context.
Obviously to the theologian, whose context is in the academia, reading Pannenberg is more time-worthy. And the academia is still caught up with the practice of doing theology through the conventional media (books, journals, conferences). What if one's context of doing theology is different? What if we are doing theology with the new media (blogs, Facebook, semi-public e-forum)?
That is not to say that we disregard academic reading altogether, but to acknowledge that theology is always done in context. The academia style is one among others.