I find his arguments and the arguments here and a few other places very intriguing. And from what I have read and heard from Shane and from various other sources it seems to me that this conversation (or should I say webersation?) illustrates Shane’s point. This set of comments are among the most civil I have read, and I do not detect much hostility. However this does not hold true in other places.
One of the things that I have gleaned from Shane’s (Zach and Jay) points is that physical interacting community takes a certain amount of courage and vulnerability to participate in. The virtual does not always, because a person is “protected” by fairly high degree anonymity. Which one could argue allows for the potential of greater vulnerability, but does it? There is probably a greater potential for insincerity and shallowness online then in f2f, because you would need to be very crass person to act thatt way to someones face. Which if anyone,aside from Zach, has listened to Shane’s podcasts he goes into some detail about cyberbullying and the effects thereof. Which is the interesting part of virtual community when it extends into physical life (whole other topic)

Virtual/physical community is kind of like saying that I play a mean guitar, when I only have ever played Guitar Hero, I am playing guitar, but I’m not _playing_ the guitar. It has the net effect of playing some tunes but in no way do I posses the skills to play a stringed instrument (1). This may be a simplified example but to the way I understand these conversations, this is what is boils down to for me. Now Guitar Hero is the closest thing that I will get to playing a guitar, therefore my perception and therefor my reality, is that Guitar Hero becomes for me actually playing.

To say that we the church needs to adapt to the culture is an interesting idea. I am coming to the realization that Jesus’ message was very subversive and counter culture. I am also beginning to think that adapting to the culture, either blindly or not, is selling out. Jesus’ message and ultimately his life was about the freeing people from the slavery of oppression and living against God (sometimes called sin). If the general culture is trying to find meaning in disembodied encounters then the power of the church is in having and sharing meaning in embodied encounters. Because then we are offering freedom from tyranny of facelessness and physical disconnectedness. I believe that the very reason that social networking sites, twitter etc are so popular is because people crave connection with other people, we are hardwired for it. Yet our everyday lives are reduced to sound-bytes, headlines and 60 second clips, we are generally losing the ability to think, act and feel deeper than a puddle. To me the greater church is missing the opportunity to provide more substance and less fluff. So what if we get it wrong the first time, being offended is not a bad thing it just means someone is ignorant and we need to work together to find truth. And that is the crux of community, not being afraid of conflict, how does it go? “as iron sharpens iron”…
Well my quarter ran out…

Cheers,
Mark

(1)Rob Bell used the analogy of Guitar hero in a different context, but I think it was applicable and I have to give props.

I must agree with Zack and Shane on this matter, virtual community is one but not the other. Zack is right, face to face community is so important to Christian living, and living in community is hard. Church communities are made up of all types of personalities, and living in authentic Christian community takes hard work, discipline, patience, love, kindness, understanding, devotion and commitment. In contrast, It’s very easy to find people like you on the internet, that’s why sites like facebook, myspace and twitter grow, and for that matter, die out so fast.

I think we can all agree that “virtual communities” have their place, and that they can certainly be meaningful on some level. We can also agree that it is not a substitute for real community because it is something different than real community, they are not the same. One thing I learned from Shane Hipps’ first book is that we critique far too soon, we must first seek understanding. Before so readily accepting new technologies we should first understand how they work and what they can do to us.

I live in Pennsylvania and go to a Mennonite church. I also know many Amish. An interesting fact about Amish is that they do accept new technologies, they just do it really slowly. Before accepting a new technology they prayerfully contemplate and consider how this new thing will affect their way of life, their community and how it will change them. Let’s not fool ourselves, technology, including “virtual communities,” are neither good nor bad, but they are not neutral!

I do think his critique of online community is certainly in order, and we can benefit from making comparisons between the carnate and discarnate/ mediated and unmediated forms. When Hipps discusses the four criteria that he puts forth, he does an excellent job of showing how each can shed light on the efficacy of the other. Great stuff to explore there. But he oversteps by making a definite judgment.

Certainly community is/will be different online. Very different. And depending on the mediation, the qualities of the community experience (both real and perceived) will vary. Just as face-to-face people don’t always get community right (how often do we ever?), community via media is a moving target (as technology and behaviors evolve at a tremendous rate). For example, I see a vast qualitative difference between a livestreaming video chat or event between people with shared history, and random community “events” like the mega-church style services involving avatars in Second Life. There is a continuum here that can benefit from Hipps’ critique; and, if I might add, some communication research (this is wide open territory). Nonetheless, I think you are right to push back.

Community is important, it’s sacred for Christians. The term “virtual community” for Christians might as well be the equivalent to virtual parenting or virtual marriage. In this case, I agree with Shane that it’s one but not the other. Like I said earlier, online connection can be meaningful and extremely helpful, but that doesn’t mean it’s community.

But the point is some relationships are only (and can only be) mediated electronically, and yet they are still—again, whether “real” or “just perceived,” and I would argue “perception is reality”—very significant. For example, I know a group of people on Twitter who call themselves “twurch” (“Twitter church”) because they’ve connected with each other from all over the country (and all over the world, actually, with “members” in the UK, etc.), and they experience relationship/friendship with one another where they share details about their lives, pray for one another, etc.

Is this really “church”? I understand Shane might not think so, as he’s advocating for “true community” which to him requires physical presence. But you asked me to address Shane’s four ingredients for “meaningful missional community” specifically, so here goes:

1) “a shared history” – When does “history” begin? I’d argue that “history” begins with the first encounter, whether it be virtual or physical. Shane says a shared history “helps establish” a sense of identity and belonging — but there are things in the virtual world that “help establish” identity and belonging. Are profile pictures of someone the same as physically seeing their face or shaking their hand? Of course not, but both “help establish” identity.

Online groups/networks/causes “help establish” belonging. If I join the “People Against FOCA” group on Facebook, other people in that group (or even outside that group) can identify me as someone who is taking a position on that legislation and either accept me based on that or not. Either I “belong,” in their minds, or not. My point is, that’s a type/level of “belonging.”

2) “permanence” – Shane says, “It’s how you get shared history.” Maybe it’s just semantics, but whether something is “permanent” (i.e., lasting forever) or not does not validate or negate whether something is significant in one’s life. I’ve been a part of a number of churches/communities that no longer exist that have been influential on and continue to be significant in my life. Perhaps “persistence” would be a better word? Or even “experience”? Shared history is what we get from doing things together. If I have sex with someone only one time, I still have a “shared history” with that person, don’t I? That could be a “significant,” “meaningful” event in my life, right?

I appreciate what Shane seems to be after here — fighting against the “transient,” consumeristic nature of many seeking Christian community — but I question the legitimacy of this second point, again, on the basis of his limited definition of what is “meaningful”/”significant.”

3) “proximity” – Shane says, “You have to be with one another in order to create the kind of meaningful connections to have community.” I disagree that “meaningful community” is dependent on physical presence. I think this completely discounts the many types of connections that happen online everyday, which are considered “meaningful” by so many people. Just because they think of these connections as “meaningful” and Shane Hipps does not, does that negate how “meaningful” they are? I think significance absolutely depends on the individual.

I’d also question the definition of “proximity.” Again, Shane is defining this solely on physical presence, and I would argue that the emotional definition is far more important and valid. For example, I can feel emotionally “closer” to someone who I only know online and have never met, than I do with my next door neighbor who I see everyday but have no real relationship with. Is this a “good thing”? Probably not, but just because I am in close physical proximity (perhaps even sleeping in the same bed!) with someone does not guarantee real intimacy/community. (My wife, the sexologist/relationship coach, could share a lot of examples to illustrate this point!)

4) “a shared imagination of the future” – I love the way Shane frames this one! I love the language that he uses. And he acknowledges that the online environment is a legitimate space where this occurs, in fact, he says, quicker than it happens in the “real world.” But … it’s as if he’s suggesting this is just another way of saying “we all believe the same things” or “we all share the same theology,” which is something I deeply question (and I suspect he does too). Even with a group of people who connect online and have a “shared imagination of the future” there are going to be deep points of disagreement — and that’s a good thing!

I think one of the things that diminishes what Shane is trying to get at it is the way he mockingly refers to online interactions, when he imagines a conversation between one person who says “Remember that time I posted that comment on your comment board?” and another who reacts non-chalantly, “Yeah, it’s written right here …” (as in, “So what?”) This kind of dismissive caricaturization (not sure if that’s a word, but I’m going with it) of online interaction is really unfortunate. There are all kinds of online interactions — including the conversation we are having right now in the comments section of this blog (which, BTW, I don’t know anyone who would call this a “comment board”! — that are “meaningful” and “significant” for people.

I think, as a pastor who obviously desires “deeper,” more significant experiences for his flock, Shane has got to recognize that this is the reality. So I’d like to deal with the reality and have a conversation about how we can positively, constructively engage with the online world. I know Shane has much more to say about all this, so I’m excited to read the new book and keep this conversation going!

As I commented over at The Blind Beggar, this is not a zero-sum game … we need all options for community open and available — as well as balanced. Sometimes our local IRL situation does not provide healthy options for liminality that can lead to incarnational communitas. That which is received virtually can sometimes be the impetus to recognizing opportunities IRL.

Shalom…