Good question. I’m still thinking through it. Perhaps a way to answer it is “whatever medium is the common medium of theologians.” I think blogging has a place (after all, here I am!), but it doesn’t have a particularly robust vetting process. Perhaps there is a need to branch out beyond the traditional mediums, but I think traditional publishing will always retain pride of place. But ask me again in 50 years .

One major issue that needs to be addressed: how has the medium in which this all needs to be done changed? From earliest times theologizing has, obviously, been a multi-faceted in the forms required and employed: letters, treatises, dialogue reports, commentaries, published sermons, etc. all played a role. We’ve talked about “serious” publication and writing, etc. I obviously think that is of some value and needs to be done. But what about informal means? If born in 1960, would Ignatius have texted on the way to Rome? Blogged?

Good question. The target audience would be local theologians, popular theologians, academic theologians, interested laity. Basically, anyone concerned about the health and life of the church, and who wants to think about it from a theological perspective. The people who read Vanhoozer, Packer, Jenson, McGrath, Franke, Oden, Pannenberg, et al would be the same target audience. The aim of the SAET is to speak to the same sorts of issues being addressed by academic theologians, but to do so with a distinctly ecclesial voice. We’re not looking to replace the academic researcher, but we are looking to supplement the academic theologian.

Gerald