For me, “community” is just a way of talking about “the kind of group I’d like to live in” - there is no one definition of what a “real community” is. Once you get that red herring out of the way, it’s apparent (I think) that what people call community online is different in some important ways from what people call community offline - for example, online group members are much less likely to stick around for long periods of time. Some do, most don’t.

Here’s another thing to remember: almost (not quite, but almost) everyone I meet in an online church is going to church offline too. Talking about “online communities” as if these were the only communities people were involved in is really missing the point.

I guess the important questions would be along the lines of…

- What is a good life?
- How is the Internet helping you, personally, live a good life?
- How is our online group helping the people who join us to live a good life?

… and that may well include making friends online, finding people you can confide in, creating a space where people feel they belong, sharing fun and relaxing company, learning about God, etc. The emphasis should be on how the group fits into and enriches the lives of its members, not on anything so black-and-white as whether its a “real community” or not.

1) Shared History
Shared history can be realised and experienced at different levels. On the one hand shared history can be at a macro or global / universal level - it is something which ALL Christians have in common, and therefore on this basis any Christian community can be said to have a shared history. But I am not sure that this is what Shane is getting at.

Shared history can also be at a micro or local level, and can be shaped by society and culture - different ways of doing and different ways of being. With a virtual community, drawing upon people from different societies and cultures surely everything is up in the air and it takes TIME for such a community to establish its identity at a local level? So it is not just related to the infancy of the medium; it is also to do with the diversity that may be realised through these communities.

If you go into a church building in RL, take a look at the dominant features - and consider how these may define the nature or characteristic of that community. Is there an emphasis on the pulpit for example, or the Lord’s Table, or the choir stalls? These reflect the tradition, history and theology of the expression of Christianity in that place.

Let’s not forget Mission history when many missionaries tried to impose a westernised view of Christianity on the people that they were reaching out to…was the gospel that they were sharing a first hand gospel? The point to make here is that a viritual community has to grapple with what does the gospel look like to the people that are part of it, how might the virtual medium influence that, and does that change understanding of what it is to be church. All of this is underpinned by theological anthropology.

2) Permanence
I would argue that the pace of change in a virtual context is much faster that a real life context. If you look at Second Life as an example, there are so many Christian expressions that have come and gone. This has NOTHING to do with the infancy of the community. I wonder can a vurtual community ever be static or permanent, or will it always evolve, change and adapt? Is permanence a bad thing or a good thing? And to what extent is permanence related to being consistent and demonstrating integrity.

You could also argue that the only thing that is permanent is the Trinity, and we know that when thinking of Jesus as the true vine in JOhn’s gospel that the language used includes a sense of abiding and how we are apppointed “to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.” (John 15:16-17)

I would also argue that there is a huge difference between something that can come and go and something that changes - and often church communities struggle with handling change. Through change there may well be characteristics that remain unaffected - like core values or identity.

3) Proximity
For me this again comes down to the nature of being church and what it is to be church, going back again to theological anthropology.

In the Bible there is a sense of the importance of God creating us in his image a likeness - and our physical representation is clearly important. A sense of being face to face is also important.

With introduction of alternative forms of communication, we have had to learn how to communicate effectively in different ways. When the bulk of communication in a face to face situation is non verbal HOW do we compensate when using alternative forms of communication? How do we effectively communicate emotion in an email or in chat?

It may come down to expectation and understanding. If people come into a virtual environment and expect it to be the same as real life or face to face, then their expectation will not be addressed. Do people understand the differences in communication in a virtual context and are they able to compensate for the different communication medium that is used?

I think is is also important to bear in mind ’screening’ and ‘projection’ that may happen in a virtual context - of course people can wear masks in real life - but a virtual environment can have a profound impact on self esteem, self awareness and realisation and people can behave in different ways to how they might in real life. Wisdom is knowing how to address these challenges and foster effective communication and trust.

In all of this, I am not saying that Shane has all the answers is necessarily totally correct. But I do think that there are wider implications we need to be aware of.

Would you say a phone call or a get well card are not valid forms of expressing a relationship because they don’t involve physical proximity?

I myself frequently use my FB status updates to send prayer requests to my Christian friends, either relating to my own needs or about situations that concern me. I’ve heard that many people use Twitter for the same purpose. There’s no question to my mind that social networking and other expressions of ‘virtual church’ fit the Church’s mission in the contemporary context, and those who knock them do so only out of ignorance.

We are physical creatures, not just minds unfortunately connected to inconvenient chunks of meat. That may sound a rather crude way of putting it, but it’s one which I believe is justified by the pervasive dualism of contemporary western culture (which is where most virtual communities originate) - a dualism which was given a huge impetus, as Douglas Estes rightly points out, by Decartes’ metaphysics.

Physical proximate community may have its problems (the roof never leaks in a virtual church) but it grounds us and forces us to relate to others, warts and all. We can’t run away as easily as we can online. We have to take the consequences of our actions and words far more “really” than we do online. Physical presence permits being with someone in qualitatively superior ways compared to virtual presence: we can’t sit in silent fellowship online, nor can we pay obvious attention - we can’t _listen_ online.

Virtual community can be a very good thing - it can create and enhance relationships, and be a source of advice and support - but it will always be lacking compared to physical proximate community. I believe this distinction is at the heart of the Christian faith - we believe in the Word made flesh, not the Word made web !

I’ve also been involved in ‘real’ churches for over 20 years and I think it’s equally easy there for people to create a ‘virtual’ persona, i.e. the person they are in church is not the person they are the rest of the week.

In fact, when I think about my experiences of RL churches, shared history (we’ve always done it that way), permanence (this church will carry on existing regardless of what we do or don’t do to sustain the community), and proximity (I come here because it is my local church not because God called me here) can work against true community in offline churches!