This is a good question. But not enough of us are thinking about how we can answer this question aside from just giving our opinion. How do we decide if an internet site is a community? Do we just say "I don't think so" or "I think so" and then, because each of us is entitled to an opinion, stand staring at one another in a stalemate?I asked both Shane and Anne to offer their definitions of "community" and so I thought I'd offer mine here, and ask you what you think: What is a community?
The standard way we Protestants answer such questions is to go to the Bible, and I hope we would also use the Church tradition as our sounding board. Some reflections, but we have to begin with a dictionary on this one because we are talking about how best to use the English word "community."
First, the word "community" derives from Latin. In one way or another, it goes back to "common" or "hold things in common." We get all kinds of words from the Latin heritage: commune and community and communion and communism.
Now we're at a stalemate: since our Latin-derived word is behind all of these variety of meanings, we discover folks using such a word for all kinds of things held in common (the community of Cubs fans, the community of Phoenix, the community of homeschooling). Let me say this a different way: "community" is a word capable of being used in a variety of ways and for a variety of degrees of commonality. We might also appeal here to the prescriptive vs. descriptive use of language: since the word "community" is used promiscuously by so many, the word "community" takes its meaning from its users instead of from some narrowly-defined set of criteria in a dictionary.
I think there is a way out, and it is my second point. I propose three ways of looking at this word "community" to help us think about whether it is appropriate to call an internet site a "community." It would be appropriate to see my sketch as "three levels of community."
First, there is what I will call the common, generous use of "community." It is used to describe any kind of commonality. Thus, there is the New York Times community of readers and the golf community and an internet community. Thus, it refers to some kind of connection between people or villages or nations or nation-states. Like it or not, this is how Westerners use this term. Look it up in the OED -- the word "community" is used for the "scientific community" because it shares at least one characteristic.
Second, there is a Christian fellowship (koinonia) use of "community." The New Testament and early Christian word "koinonia" (fellowship) was frequently translated into the Latin word "communitas" (with variants) so that there is a solid linguistic reason for understanding the word "community" more narrowly as the "Christian fellowship." That is, what holds Christians together -- life, goods, exchange of goods, Spirit, beliefs -- constitutes "community." Here are some NT references: Acts 2:42; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:16; 2 Cor 6:14; 13:14.
Third, there is a Christian church (ecclesia) use of "community," and here one might think both "universally" and "nationally" and "denominationally" and "locally." The word Greek word "ekklesia" is not translated with the word "community" in Latin; it becomes "ecclesia" in Latin. Here the word "community" refers only to those gathered (embodied) together in faith and discipleship and worship -- around Jesus Christ.
Here's my proposal: an internet site can be a "community" in the generous sense; it can be a community in the "fellowship" sense to the degree that there is some Christian life being shared between folks but it will fall short of koinonia community most of the time, but it can (or should) never be an ecclesial community.
First, the word "community" derives from Latin. In one way or another, it goes back to "common" or "hold things in common." We get all kinds of words from the Latin heritage: commune and community and communion and communism.Now we're at a stalemate: since our Latin-derived word is behind all of these variety of meanings, we discover folks using such a word for all kinds of things held in common (the community of Cubs fans, the community of Phoenix, the community of homeschooling). Let me say this a different way: "community" is a word capable of being used in a variety of ways and for a variety of degrees of commonality. We might also appeal here to the prescriptive vs. descriptive use of language: since the word "community" is used promiscuously by so many, the word "community" takes its meaning from its users instead of from some narrowly-defined set of criteria in a dictionary.
I think there is a way out, and it is my second point. I propose three ways of looking at this word "community" to help us think about whether it is appropriate to call an internet site a "community." It would be appropriate to see my sketch as "three levels of community."
First, there is what I will call the common, generous use of "community." It is used to describe any kind of commonality. Thus, there is the New York Times community of readers and the golf community and an internet community. Thus, it refers to some kind of connection between people or villages or nations or nation-states. Like it or not, this is how Westerners use this term. Look it up in the OED -- the word "community" is used for the "scientific community" because it shares at least one characteristic.
Second, there is a Christian fellowship (koinonia) use of "community." The New Testament and early Christian word "koinonia" (fellowship) was frequently translated into the Latin word "communitas" (with variants) so that there is a solid linguistic reason for understanding the word "community" more narrowly as the "Christian fellowship." That is, what holds Christians together -- life, goods, exchange of goods, Spirit, beliefs -- constitutes "community." Here are some NT references: Acts 2:42; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:16; 2 Cor 6:14; 13:14.Third, there is a Christian church (ecclesia) use of "community," and here one might think both "universally" and "nationally" and "denominationally" and "locally." The word Greek word "ekklesia" is not translated with the word "community" in Latin; it becomes "ecclesia" in Latin. Here the word "community" refers only to those gathered (embodied) together in faith and discipleship and worship -- around Jesus Christ.
Here's my proposal: an internet site can be a "community" in the generous sense; it can be a community in the "fellowship" sense to the degree that there is some Christian life being shared between folks but it will fall short of koinonia community most of the time, but it can (or should) never be an ecclesial community.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
...one more thing.
There is a sense in which folks equate physical "church" with the kind of intimacy that we are called to as the Body of Christ. But there are many experiences of "church" that are not remotely intimate. People come and go and there is no interaction. There are many, many reasons for this ... and I believe that it is a HUGE challenge that is not easy to overcome for lots of congregations. (This, from a former "Community Life Pastor" at a large congregation.)
And there is a sense in which people equate "virtual" community to be void of that kind of intimacy because it is not physical. But that is just not the case. There are many of us here at the Jesus Creed blog (especially those of us who remember the One T Saloon fun) who have gotten to know each other quite well -- and communicate with each other in other venues ... sometimes meeting IRL.
I see it more like a blending of three "circles", where koinonia and allelon and ekklesia can be experienced separately, but are most powerfully experienced where they intersect. Perhaps there are even ranges within the inner circle where the "core" is experienced IRL but there is an outer area where "virtual reality" comes into play.
I say this because it has been my exact experience ... and perhaps there are others who have experienced this as well.
I am absolutely not saying that we shouldn't aim for the bulls-eye...just that sometimes it is not available or possible for all sorts of reasons.
The question being, "Is an internet SITE community?" can't be answered simply as we are seeing. I think it all has to do in how much interaction is happening. I think much of what makes a community is subjective. Do people feel as if they are a part of the site? Do they feel as if they are a part of a community? Then yes... THAT site can be community. If there is a site that doesn't have much interaction and it doesn't give people ownership in the way of being a part of ongoing conversationk then THAT site is not community.
What we have to come to grips with is that the issue isn't online or offline. The issue is relationship, connection, and transparency. Especially for those in the Net (or Millennial) Generation, the lines between online and offline interactions don't exist; they are extensions of each other.
I think a better question to ask would be, "Can community exist online as well as offline?"
Scot -
I like your definitions, but I'm not sure I can draw the circles the same way, and its precisely because the point that Henry (#7) just made so well: I think the discussion has to see online presence as an extension of offline presence.
Shane keeps speaking as if offline were something separate from online. Two different worlds. But while I think that was true for the "early Internet" (and will continue to be true for many "affinity-based" groupings...sorta analogous to your first category), if you study the way the next generation uses information connectivity (Facebook, IM, txt, etc), it's to project and live inside a community they are already physically embodied in i.e. their friends. (I think Pew Research has the best stuff right now, at least in 2008). Mediation just extends their reach (like the phone).
So I think your first two categories are workable especially to describe something like the Jesus Creed community. But to look at all to the future, I think we've gotta speak of the way different mediations affect our perceptions, but we can't think online interactions "replace" community: they extend it.
I've got a couple more questions for Shane that I posted for my friends over on my blog: http://chrisridgeway.blogspot.com/2009/03/questions-for-shane-hipps-theology-of.html
And I'm gonna keep trying to write my series of thoughts on the Theology of Facebook there, too.
Henry,
I think that the answer to your question "Can community exist online as well as offline?" is yes. But while one can do just fine with only offline interactions, I don't think that one can do fine with only online interactions - and this is a key asymmetry.
Online only is similar to pen-pal relationships, good but not enough. Online as an extension of and supplement to offline can enhance the community. This is the way my daughter and her friends use "online" resources.
A blog like JC is valuable (extremely valuable), but for most probably not community in the most important sense. There is still an element of vagueness - we are not always (perhaps often) "real people" in our interactions.
I'm in agreement with what Chris says I see.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.