Clearly we're playing with semantics here. I don't say that
dismissively. Semantics matter--some times more than other times. I'll
let others judge whether it matters here. It may be that we agree
after all.
First, my language in the video was less nuanced than it might have
been in written form. That is my tendency in a spontaneous oral
interview. I will try to be more precise here.
When I say that "virtual community" is not "community," that does not
mean it has no value. As I indicated in the interview, I know that all
kinds of deeply meaningful connections and interactions happen online
all the time. I have experienced them myself. Some may want to call
this "community." Fair enough. I just don't call it "community." That
is not intended to dismiss or demean any one's experience online.
I play with semantics in an effort to help us see that "virtual
community" and "unmediated community" are not interchangeable things.
In my opinion, one is actually better than the other. The reason is
that "virtual community" occurs primarily on one frequency of the
human experience. It is mostly a disembodied, and largely cognitive,
connection. This is not a bad thing, it's just not as valuable as
unmediated community, which involves the entire range of the human
experience--physical, non-verbal, intuitive sense, subtle energies,
visual cues, acoustic tones, etc. These are extremely powerful things
that should not be quickly dismissed as "nice but not necessary."
Most of us see these ingredients as essential for healthy marriage and
parenting. It's the reason no one extols the virtues of online
parenting or the value of sex with your spouse in a chat room rather
than a bedroom. The same is true of community. For me, community is a
sacred and powerful institution, and I prefer to treat it in the same
spirit as marriage or parenting.
I guess what I'm saying is that virtual community is like playing the
guitar with one string. You can make music; it's just not as
interesting or as good as music on a guitar with six strings.
To observe that "real" community is worth more than "virtual"
community may seem rather obvious to some and thus not worth stating.
However, there is a growing legion of young people who can scarcely
tell the difference. A subsequent rift is emerging between parents
and teens because of this very issue. It will only become more
complex in the years to come. We gloss over this distinction at our
own risk. I hope that putting words to these things is actually
freeing for us.
Finally, I'm not against virtual community anymore than I'm against
the wind and the tides; I'm just concerned that too many of us grant
it virtues it does not possess. This undo esteem can undermine the
profound and lasting impact of an incarnated and embodied Gospel. But
perhaps we agree on this point.
mean it has no value. As I indicated in the interview, I know that all
kinds of deeply meaningful connections and interactions happen online
all the time. I have experienced them myself. Some may want to call
this "community." Fair enough. I just don't call it "community." That
is not intended to dismiss or demean any one's experience online.
I play with semantics in an effort to help us see that "virtual
community" and "unmediated community" are not interchangeable things.
In my opinion, one is actually better than the other. The reason is
that "virtual community" occurs primarily on one frequency of the
human experience. It is mostly a disembodied, and largely cognitive,
connection. This is not a bad thing, it's just not as valuable as
unmediated community, which involves the entire range of the human
experience--physical, non-verbal, intuitive sense, subtle energies,
visual cues, acoustic tones, etc. These are extremely powerful things
that should not be quickly dismissed as "nice but not necessary."
Most of us see these ingredients as essential for healthy marriage and
parenting. It's the reason no one extols the virtues of online
parenting or the value of sex with your spouse in a chat room rather
than a bedroom. The same is true of community. For me, community is a
sacred and powerful institution, and I prefer to treat it in the same
spirit as marriage or parenting.
I guess what I'm saying is that virtual community is like playing the
guitar with one string. You can make music; it's just not as
interesting or as good as music on a guitar with six strings.
To observe that "real" community is worth more than "virtual"
community may seem rather obvious to some and thus not worth stating.
However, there is a growing legion of young people who can scarcely
tell the difference. A subsequent rift is emerging between parents
and teens because of this very issue. It will only become more
complex in the years to come. We gloss over this distinction at our
own risk. I hope that putting words to these things is actually
freeing for us.
Finally, I'm not against virtual community anymore than I'm against
the wind and the tides; I'm just concerned that too many of us grant
it virtues it does not possess. This undo esteem can undermine the
profound and lasting impact of an incarnated and embodied Gospel. But
perhaps we agree on this point.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Can I just say that I love Shane Hipps!
Of course in-person communities -- churches in particular -- should have advantages over on-line communities, including via the face-to-face personal connection they provide.
The problem is that the local church in many instances often fails miserably in terms of adequately building community. Often church is simply a place where people show up on Sunday and engage in polite conversation. The same thing often carries through to small groups.
Too often the church does not provide an outlet for people to engage in open, honest dialogue about what really matters. People are discouraged in a lot of ways from asking the hard questions about faith, or talking about their deepest, darkest challenges. There also isn't much of a sense in many churches that the church *as community* has a mission to do outside of its walls.
In a lot of ways, places like this blog allow for the sort of dialogue and community that should be taking place in churches, but isn't. So, despite its limitations, I see blogs like this as filling in a significant "community" gap that many local churches have failed to address.
So to me, the real question is not whether places like Jesus Creed provide community (it obviously does, despite significant limitations), but why the church isn't providing the community that was intended.
I just wanted to add an Amen to what you've shared, Eric #8. While a church and physical community should have some advantages over a cyber community, sometimes the exact reverse can be the experience as people are excluded and alienated or just ignored. The discussion that Scot started about neo-reformed is one example of how many churches are actually denying community and driving people away from fellowship. Also, one of the most alone feelings a person can have is to be in a body of people, whether large or small, and feel invisible. Thanks for expressing well some of the issues that we really face in the church.
My family and friends are spread out across the US. While facebook and blogs keep us connected, it is being with each other that we desire most. Likewise, I can see value to an online Christian community but I have several concerns.
--It is easier to put on a mask online. I can tell you my story but you can't see my tears.
--We gravitate to persons who believe what we believe and if we disagree, it is easy to leave a virtual community (less attachment, I have not watched your kids grow up or received meals when my father died...)
Our faith needs to be lived out within community. If virtual community adds to our faith community great. It only becomes a problem if it takes the place of face to face community with shared experiences and active caring.
I think the "connection" versus "community" distinction is certainly an important one.
I think in the video Hipps plays semantics with incarnate, although his point may ultimately be quite true. Movies and re-broadcast of sermons aren't incarnate either--if we buy this line of reasoning.
I think what Hipps may miss is that the ability to collaborate online in terms of sharing ideas is hard to replicate on the scale that a virtual platform provides.
Ultimately, I think Hipps points are well taken. We should focus on real face to face relationships as much as we can.
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.