Virtual Community

Here is a first go at one of the subjects of discussion in the ebb and flow of the conversation is about the idea of ‘virtual community’. Of course, please don’t forget my all important disclaimer for my blog.

I think it is a subject that is likely to be kicked around for some time to come. (Shane Hipps sparked a recent debate which was followed by Scot McKnight, with a couple of replies with Anne Jackson joining in just before she gave it up for Lent.)

For some reason it is a little bit of a sensitive subject. This may possibly be because the dominant paradigm view of being church that puts the gathering of the [local] church on Sunday at [a] church [building] at the centre of the notion of community.

I happen the think that the way this dominant view is maintained is through the way we use language.

Yeah, sure, we use language that identifies the church with the mystery of being a part of the ‘communion of saints’ as we share the meal together. We speak of the church gathered and un-gathered. But, for the most part, our language (from the pulpit, in the pews, in our publications, and even in the media) still places the institutionally organised worship service in the building as the way of being church.

It isn’t wrong to think of "ekklesia" as those gathered together in faith, discipleship, witness, and service — around Jesus Christ. But, is it really appropriate to limit our understanding of "ekklesia" to a framework of space that was within the first century CE cosmology of the apostle Paul?

No, I am not saying that it is a bad thing for use to gather together for mutual edification and nurture. And, I am not saying that a virtual community is the same or can do the same things as a physical community. Nor is it a substitute for physical community.

The trouble with the debate perhaps is a matter of language. The debate seems to get bogged down into the notion of what community is. I wonder if the problem is that the debate shouldn’t really be about the nature of community – but the debate would be best dealt with by going beyond the definition of community.

I don’t think it is helpful to us language that describes a website or the internet per se as being the community. My developing understanding is that the Internet (websites, blogs, Twitter, and Facebook) would be better understood as space(s) that act as a plane of existence in which community may be found.

The likes of Pete Rollins and John Caputo are much better equipped to help us with the philosophical nature of the nature of metaphysics and existence or lack thereof. But, unfortunately I do need to dabble with my limited grasp of the subject to work with the idea of space.

The almost forgotten word cyberspace was coined to describe this notion of a virtual place that we know as the Internet.

I understand a website is merely a node in cyberspace, and your being(identity) is separate from that node. Within one or more nodes you may find a hint of the event of your being(identity) can be found as a form of existence in the form of blog posts, twitters, photos, or the like.

The debate of ‘virtual community’ seems to assume a dualistic cosmology separating the physical from the virtual. A number of authors I have read have likened this separation as not being unlike the physical/spiritual dualism that is clearly held in our church culture and language.

However, what cyberspace shows us is that your being(identity) in its existence, the event of your person can be in many spaces at the same time.

Could it be that regardless of the space we exist we can find that we participate in one or more communities (gathered and ungathered) simultaneously across the space (and time) continuum? Yes, we move our attention and in and out of the spaces. But, just because we are in the proximity of one community, doesn’t mean the event of our presence has ceased to exist in the other space. Perhaps this is another example of us being made in the ‘image of God’.

I think we need to get beyond this limitation. And, working within the notion of virtual existence is a pretty good place to help move along the whole conversation. Because in reality it isn’t really about the technology or virtual reality. In actually fact we are trying to come to terms with the reality that our view of things has to shift.

At the moment my thinking is that being Church isn’t about proximity but it does help the community of faith do Church. But, people who have never met can participate share common objectives and work together towards making the world a better place. This can happen both in the physical and virtual spaces.

The irony of the debate is that virtual depends on the physical. The Internet exists because of the physical network communications infrastructure in place.

We are both in the virtual and physical at the same time. Translating this into Rob Bell speak – everything is spiritual. We don’t really move in and out of these states of existence they just are. My internet presence doesn’t stop just because I am not looking at the screen.

Orthodox theology has the language to help us open up ourselves to understand that we actual live in a state of concurrent existence.

If Paul had been around these days we may have got a letter addressed to the dear friends of the church at Scot McKnight’s blog.