Shane Hipps on Community (and below it my response)

Shane is spot on. Semantics matter. Perhaps we can come up with something like "para-community" to highlight the value of virtual communication -- and to acknowledge its limitations.

This whole trend toward disembodiment (postmodern gnosticism?) makes me nervous. If I'm ONLY dealing with people through the computer or processing a sermon that comes via a video downlink -- I'm not relating to a whole person. Sometimes it's no more than just a shadow in a cave.

In the past we had virtual communication through writing and art -- but we knew that it was not complete. With what we're doing now the temptation is to fool ourselves into thinking that we're more connected to reality than is actually true. Of course, if perception is the only thing which matters...

There is anxiety and discomfort around the idea of the Internet as community. Was there (I think not) this kind of discomfort around letter writing in the 18th century, which, in the days of the twice-a-day delivered penny post could be argued as the equivalent of the Internet? Did people hand wring all the time about whether exchanging letters was "real" community? So I tend to wonder what underlies this anxiety. Of course, a real, flesh-and-blood community can be better--it's certainly more complete. But just as obviously, if it was meeting all our needs, none of us would be here. Flesh and blood communities provide touch, non-verbal cues, etc, but they are also more threatening, I think, than cyber communities. In a fallen world, touch can become pain (violence), non-verbal cues can become snobbery, etc.

I wonder too, if we worry that the person we treat as an equal on a blog might not be a person we would reject in real life. And conversely that we "protest too much" our disdain of internet community vis-a-vis real life to "show" that we do have "lives," to show that we are not one of "those" people who spend their days in a darkened room in front of screen, incapable of social interaction. I know I quite consciously tossed a photo of myself and two of my children up on my blog to show I'm essentially "normal." (Of course, it could be a faked photo ...:))

In any case, the internet can be a way to get to know and love people who might be marginalized and misunderstood by our society because of some physical disability or being overweight or not having good body language or whatever ... and that at some point that's all of us, because all of us are imperfect and experience rejection in real community on some level for whatever reason, even if it's the woman who's torn apart by the other women for being too beautiful ... Everything that's good about physicality also leads to potential cruel judgment of people on a physical basis. So I like the fact that Internet community has the potential to be inclusive. And I don't think we should worry about it. We obviously like it and if the person next to us has cooties, so what?

David (#4),

I agree that there are a range of possibilities in physical community that are not available in cyberspace and that it's very important to note that Jesus took a lot of time to be with people physically. It's also very important to note that most of us "know" Jesus through the Word, not physical contact, not face time. I think, if I'm remembering correctly, that this gets us back to the beginning of Derrida's Of Grammatology, where the Greeks, perhaps, are concerned that writing is overtaking orality ... and D. starts on why do we privilege the oral ... it had to come back to postmodernism, right? :)

I think, however, the primary question about cyberspace has to be, not whether the communities are "real," but whether they enhancing or hurting our primary relationships. The question is not the hurting person who gets a shoulder to cry on from her real community, but the person who needs a shoulder to cry on in her real community and gets rebuffed and thus doubly hurt. For her, cyberspace may be a blessing. Right now, however, getting sucked into this discussion is hurting my primary relationships, so I will be off.

Can I just say that I love Shane Hipps!

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.

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.