07.18.06
Posted in faith, culture at 3:14 pm by Brandon
Ah, it’s a beautiful day here in internet-avoiding-the-finishing-touches-on-my-Master’s-thesis-land. It’s funny, all joking about avoiding work aside, how we internet-happy blog-surfers tend to think of the internet as a real place. Almost as if we could reach out and touch our fellow internet surfers.
I was just reading a piece at Stupid Church People about the idea of a community of internet-Christians being a church. It’s an interesting, even intriguing thought, isn’t it?
I admit, I like the idea of being able to be a part of a community of believers, no matter the medium by which we interact. However, it’s an idea that I just don’t think I can buy into.
Now, at the outset, I must admit that I wholly think it’s possible to be part of THE Church in a particular internet community. But the idea of being A church is what I’m not sure I’m on board with. Being a part of the Church is something you take with you everywhere you go, I think. So yeah, having a community of believers interact is a good thing. Probably something that needs to happen more often.
However, becoming a church is another thing entirely. I think in American society we Christians have fallen in love with the pat answer about a church being about the people, not the building. The thing is, proximity IS a big part of what makes A church “a church”. The church is a body of believers called together at a specific place.
Why does it matter? Well, I think it matters for a few reasons. First, being bound together by proximity creates a community whose first tie is not ideology. I think there’s a real danger in church communities whose ideologies are their binding characteristic. Now, that’s not to say that it’s entirely a bad thing to be involved in all ideologically driven communities, it’s just dangerous for churches. An ideologically driven church will necessarily single out and endivinate (no, I’m not sure that’s a word) specific ideologies–such as conservative, or liberal ones. Everybody else is sort of left out to dry. In fact, if you’re reading this blog and empathising with what I’ve written about here for, say, the past 2 plus years, you’ve probably been hurt by an ideologically driven community.
Another thing that lacking proximity does for religious communities is that it disallows them to do things. I mean, sure, we can have a computer mediated discussion, and we’ll even be more likely to be incredibly satisfied with that discussion…but the bottom line is that we don’t shake hands, celebrate the eucharist together, serve at a soup-kitchen together, or go visit the sick.
Being a community of proximity also allows us to contact people of multiple generations. If you hadn’t noticed, most of us in the blogosphere–at least those of us who I usually interact wit–are basically my age. Sure, there’s the odd 50-something (no offense intended by the “odd”) but for the most part, we’re in our late 20’s through our 40’s. There’s no elder stateswomen from whom we can glean pearls of wisdom, nor are there many (any?) children whose faith the scriptures tell us hold the key to the very moorings of our faith.
The people with whom we discuss (read: argue) often hide behind a hot-headed rhetoric of youthful-righteous-indignation, and to be honest we (read: I) often respond in kind. In a community of proximity, we wouldn’t do that. We wouldn’t berate, belittle, or any of those other awful “be”’s because, frankly, we’ll be seeing them throughout the week.
Now, that’s not to say that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in online communities. Far from it. They can be a place of solace, fresh thinking, and a place where the soul can be rebuilt. We can use these communities as a place to be THE Church.
I’m not sure the article in question was advocating a position that the online community can REPLACE a church; however, I fear that some of us can start to think that way from time to time. When we get frustrated with the current state of the Church of proximity, we like to think that there’s another, better option. I fear, though, that that option isn’t really “better” at all, it’s just different. I think it’s human nature that the grass will probably ALWAYS look greener, no matter where we are.
I don’t write this to be adversarial, but I do write it to point out that it is important to be reminded that despite all the angst we’re caused by the church’s antics, it’s important to remember that antics exist everywhere.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/07/18/a-community-of-place/trackback/
Posted in faith, culture at 3:14 pm by Brandon
Ah, it’s a beautiful day here in internet-avoiding-the-finishing-touches-on-my-Master’s-thesis-land. It’s funny, all joking about avoiding work aside, how we internet-happy blog-surfers tend to think of the internet as a real place. Almost as if we could reach out and touch our fellow internet surfers.
I was just reading a piece at Stupid Church People about the idea of a community of internet-Christians being a church. It’s an interesting, even intriguing thought, isn’t it?
I admit, I like the idea of being able to be a part of a community of believers, no matter the medium by which we interact. However, it’s an idea that I just don’t think I can buy into.
Now, at the outset, I must admit that I wholly think it’s possible to be part of THE Church in a particular internet community. But the idea of being A church is what I’m not sure I’m on board with. Being a part of the Church is something you take with you everywhere you go, I think. So yeah, having a community of believers interact is a good thing. Probably something that needs to happen more often.
However, becoming a church is another thing entirely. I think in American society we Christians have fallen in love with the pat answer about a church being about the people, not the building. The thing is, proximity IS a big part of what makes A church “a church”. The church is a body of believers called together at a specific place.
Why does it matter? Well, I think it matters for a few reasons. First, being bound together by proximity creates a community whose first tie is not ideology. I think there’s a real danger in church communities whose ideologies are their binding characteristic. Now, that’s not to say that it’s entirely a bad thing to be involved in all ideologically driven communities, it’s just dangerous for churches. An ideologically driven church will necessarily single out and endivinate (no, I’m not sure that’s a word) specific ideologies–such as conservative, or liberal ones. Everybody else is sort of left out to dry. In fact, if you’re reading this blog and empathising with what I’ve written about here for, say, the past 2 plus years, you’ve probably been hurt by an ideologically driven community.
Another thing that lacking proximity does for religious communities is that it disallows them to do things. I mean, sure, we can have a computer mediated discussion, and we’ll even be more likely to be incredibly satisfied with that discussion…but the bottom line is that we don’t shake hands, celebrate the eucharist together, serve at a soup-kitchen together, or go visit the sick.
Being a community of proximity also allows us to contact people of multiple generations. If you hadn’t noticed, most of us in the blogosphere–at least those of us who I usually interact wit–are basically my age. Sure, there’s the odd 50-something (no offense intended by the “odd”) but for the most part, we’re in our late 20’s through our 40’s. There’s no elder stateswomen from whom we can glean pearls of wisdom, nor are there many (any?) children whose faith the scriptures tell us hold the key to the very moorings of our faith.
The people with whom we discuss (read: argue) often hide behind a hot-headed rhetoric of youthful-righteous-indignation, and to be honest we (read: I) often respond in kind. In a community of proximity, we wouldn’t do that. We wouldn’t berate, belittle, or any of those other awful “be”’s because, frankly, we’ll be seeing them throughout the week.
Now, that’s not to say that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in online communities. Far from it. They can be a place of solace, fresh thinking, and a place where the soul can be rebuilt. We can use these communities as a place to be THE Church.
I’m not sure the article in question was advocating a position that the online community can REPLACE a church; however, I fear that some of us can start to think that way from time to time. When we get frustrated with the current state of the Church of proximity, we like to think that there’s another, better option. I fear, though, that that option isn’t really “better” at all, it’s just different. I think it’s human nature that the grass will probably ALWAYS look greener, no matter where we are.
I don’t write this to be adversarial, but I do write it to point out that it is important to be reminded that despite all the angst we’re caused by the church’s antics, it’s important to remember that antics exist everywhere.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/07/18/a-community-of-place/trackback/
shelly said,
July 18, 2006 at 4:11 pm
I’m not sure the article in question was advocating a position that the online community can REPLACE a church…
I don’t think it was at all. I think it was just, in a weird sort of way, comparing the SCP readership to the church (big-”C” and small-”c”, IMO). Plus, in the previous post–the one where Steve posted the church sign he saw in Maui–it was getting quite heated. The SCPC post was mostly lighthearted, IMO.
Jenny said,
July 18, 2006 at 7:06 pm
be reminded that despite all the angst we’re caused by the church’s antics, it’s important to remember that antics exist everywhere.
I totally agree. Communities can be hard, whether they be in church or out of it.
señor jefe said,
July 18, 2006 at 11:36 pm
awww brandon. it was a damn joke!!
But in every joke there is some truth. And many find comfort in the commonality of online relationships. Many also find comfort, as you said, in being able to kick-ass at will, since the ‘kicking’ and the ‘asses’ are all virtual… (ie- little/no consequence).
Besides, if we attempted to organize beyond the blogosphere we have created here, we’d end up screwing it all up. Because that’s what people do in organized religion. We screw things up!!!
Good thoughts. Now get back to your thesis, you pansie…
(see? I’d never say that to your face…)
RC of strangeculture said,
July 19, 2006 at 10:50 am
Interesting thoughts on proximity…
my church is interesting because it’s really between a good size community and a semi-hickish town and is located in a very small undefined starter home villa…
hence the church population is very diverse and it brings challenges for sure (i.e. is a men’s event fishing and hunting or hanging out at starbucks, and then there are different ways we think, etc.)
BUT it’s good even though some days the whole concept seems worth scraping b/c like you sd proximity means you have different ppl. based on place not ideas which keep you from becoming too head strong in your own ridiculousness.
If the love God says we are to have for oneanother is so strong, then I should be able to worship and love people that think different from me and do and live differently than I.
–RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com
Amy said,
July 19, 2006 at 8:22 pm
To me, having “church” on the internet doesn’t seem to count somehow because having church is having fellowship with other believers. In my mind, fellowship is having meaningful communication and interaction with them. In order to really communicate with someone, I have to be face to face with them, which is why I hate talking on the phone. It doesn’t seem like real fellowship to have a church on the internet. How can you encourage someone you don’t really even know? So much for accountability.
dorsey said,
July 20, 2006 at 4:25 pm
I wouldn’t have thought internet “fellowship” could count, either, until I found myself on the outside of church. The friends I’ve made online, and (dare I say it?) relationships that have developed in the ensuing emails and phone calls have been nothing short of a lifeline for me through the shitstorm of the last year and a half.
Obviously, it’s not the same as an everyday, one-to-one, face-to-face relationship. But I have to say, I don’t know all that many people whose real-life church experience fosters that kind of relationship, either. Shaking hands and saying hi twice a week barely constitutes acquaintance, let alone relationship. While my own internet relationships go beyond the internet, I’ve experienced fellowship here on a profound level.
The illusion that proximity fosters accountability is wrongheaded. Accountability is only as effective as I am honest, whether I’m confessing to you face-to-face or by instant message.
Amy said,
July 20, 2006 at 9:37 pm
I agree that most brick-and-mortar churches don’t really promote actual fellowship. But I think that proximity does foster accountability to some degree. If you have a close relationship with someone so that you are with them often, observing the way they act, you can encourage righteous things they do and lovingly point out sins you see in them in a way that you can’t if you are never with them. If you were with me in person, you could easily tell that I’m a pompous bitch but it’s easier for me to disguise while typing to you online (although I’m sure I don’t entirely succeed in hiding it!). You can hold someone accountable even if they aren’t confessing their embarassing sins to you. Accountability is lovingly holding a member of the church to Christlike standards of righteousness, whether they ask you to or not. They get to keep you accountable too.
cjandrandy said,
July 21, 2006 at 8:33 am
Remember when 2 or more come together in Gods name. That is church.
We have a message for all to see and hear>please go to our web site www.cjandrandy.com.
Our Father has asked us to bring as many toegther as we can in LOVE for God and each other.
dorsey said,
July 21, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I don’t deny the benefits of proximity. My point was only that it doesn’t guarantee accountability. Even if you can observe my behavior first-hand, giving my choke-chain a jerk, no matter how lovingly, will only work if I submit myself to it. Holding me accountable completely depends on my participation. As such, I feel more free to be honest with a like-minded friend online than with the guy who’s eyeballing me from across the aisle.
For the record, you hide your pompous bitchiness very well.
señor jefe said,
July 22, 2006 at 9:17 am
I think what’s missing in this discussion is the fact that in physical church relationships, not everyone is the same. In physical churches, we all come from different backgrounds.
On blogs and message boards, the gatherings and community are all based on similar interests or dysfunctions. This can be healthy to a point. But if the entire group is based on a common disillusion/delusion, the group can propagate a very rapid downward spiral.
I’m not saying that this is happening here or anywhere else. But i can definitely see the tendency.
One of the things I love most about my physical church is the contact with people who are NOT like me. It lends a fresh perspective to life, that I would not get, were I only surrounded with people whowere exactly like me.
Neil E. Das said,
August 8, 2006 at 11:48 am
I think another thing that is missing from that we are not just brains, not just spirits. We ensconce bodies that need ordinary care and sometimes TLC. We live in house that need repairing. And even for our emotional and spiritual needs no phone call even works quite as well as a smile and a hug. No conversation is better than when the person is sitting across from you in your home or a pub. Internet communication can be a supplement or an introduction to such things, but never really a replacement. All our close relationships, and any church life worth its salt (no pun intended) should produce many relationships that fall in this category, I thing ultimately require proximity.
Neil E. Das said,
August 8, 2006 at 12:17 pm
p.s. My flatmate wrote recently wrote a piece illustrating just one of the reasons why living in proximity to one another is vital for church or really for any folk.