Fearing the Virtual Ecclesia
I see that Shane Hipps has a new book.
I read Shane’s first book and will certainly try to read this new work. I applaud Shane for wrestling with technology and spirituality, but Iâll admit that I find some of Shaneâs positions to be informal fallacies. And I perceive in Shaneâs writing an underlying techno-phobia â a fear that technology is going to harm us more than help us. He may be right. But I donât think technology is the issue â rather itâs our intentionality, or use or misuse of technology, that will ultimately enhance or impede civilization.
Shane excels at creating stark dualism â painting in blacks and whites. But todayâs virtual-ecclesial communities are landscapes of color and nuance. Shane attempts to draw bold lines in the sand, but the sand is continually shifting. He says bluntly “virtual community ain’t community.” I would suggest that virtual community is simply one aspect of authentic community. And I find it wonderfully ironic that Shane is using virtual media to convey his message 
.
Look.. I donât know anyone who would argue that virtual community is a substitute for physical community. Perhaps some of us need a book to remind them. In this sense, he is a welcome voice. But, contrary to Hipps’ position, I think virtual community establishes an authentic shared identity, a sense of belonging, a shared history, and a sense of permanence. That virtual community cannot offer physical gathering simply restates the obvious.
Let me share an example of how physical and virtual community compliment, rather than exclude, each other. I was at a conference last week. Just about anyone under 50 was using some kind of virtual communication device (iphone, notebook, etc.). There was non-stop IMâing, emailâing, twitterâing, skypâing, etc⊠Two people would have a physical conversation, and then 20 minutes later another thought would arise and an IM would continue the conversation. People were continually making virtual introductions, sharing virtual impressions of the speakers, (you get the idea).
Soon after my presentation (which was live-twittered: see TED2009 – in fact, this conference was the most active topic on Twitter.com during its four days), some conference attendees and bloggers e-mailed me with questions. They didnât need to find my physical presence. Within hours I had numerous virtual conversations to clarify and expand on my talk. Later in the conference I would run into some of these people and continue the conversation physically, enhancing both information and friendship.
After the conference, Iâve been e-mailed from numerous conference attendees asking questions, or just wishing me well. Dozens of us who met at the conference have enhanced our community bonds via virtual tools such as Linkedin and Facebook. One spontaneous circle of new friends are creating a Facebook Group to tackle alternative-energy issues using the resources of the TED Community. Â Someone took a photo of that gathering and I found it… on-line (me: blue shirt on left). Â I’m going to add this photo to my Facebook wall and live-tag every face with a name, to help us remember who’s who.
It is ALL community. Physical and virtual community works together as one continuous idea. In the same way that Gutenbergâs press added a profound new dimension to our shared experience, so virtual tools are opening up profound new opportunities for shared social access â rich resources that augment and enhance our ability to connect and share the human experience. And I think this holds especially true in ecclesiastical communities.
So.. I would say to Shane, there is no oxymoron or dichotomy in âvirtual community.â Even the Amish (!) have embraced technology and hacked it into their own framework of understanding (HT). See fellow TEDâster Kevin Kellyâs fascinating essay: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/amish_hackers_a.php
Shane, if youâre reading this â I love you! Next trip to L.A. Arizona, it would be great to connect and continue some of these ideas in âreal-time physical spaceâ. For now, I encourage you to embrace the virtual-ecclesia as just one of many tools that enhance our shared community experience.
UPDATE: Shane responds on a new Out of Ur post minute video, here:Â http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2009/02/shane_hipps_on.html — this new video updated response has (gratefully) transformed the conversation from an either/or proposition to an invitation to nuance and exploration. Thanks Shane! I’m relieved that the original Out of Ur video did not fairly present your thinking. I look forward to reading your new book – and please pick up a copy of the Wikiklesia Project for some diverse and enlightening perspectives on the virtual ecclesia.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
[...] to post this update directing your attention to John La Grou’s response to Hipps, entitled “Fearing the Virtual Ecclesia.” (Note: John was one of the main organizers of the first Wikiklesia book, which I was a contributor [...]
February 15th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
John, thanks for this excellent response to Shane Hipps! I offered my own pushback on my blog, but yours is much better (so I’ve added an update with a link over to you here
I too am a big fan of Hipps, and I think much of what he has to say about “unplugging” from technology is very challenging and worthwhile. But I’m also interested in how to deal with the reality of our culture’s move farther and farther into virtual reality. That has to be dealt with positively and constructively, as well, and my sense (as you’ve stated) is that Hipps is being a bit “techno-phobic.”
February 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
John (and Steve!), Rick Meigs had this up at the Blind Beggar (http://blindbeggar.org/?p=694) and I replied my wee push back there. Thank you for this post … I’m sure that many of the Wikiklesia authors would want to disagree a bit with the “straw men” and stark generalizations.
I agree that, with the emergence of so many digital natives (I have three young ones in my house!), we cannot move away from this, but must learn to balance it with proper restraint and context and authentic community IRL.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Huzzah, John. Like you, (and Peggy and Steve) I thought that Shane was drawing too bright a line between virtual and IRL community. Whenever people make these kinds of points to me, I always remind them that Paul’s letters to the NT churches were 1st century forms of virtual community, viewed as poor substitutes for face-to-face instruction, yet we rely on them constantly for our own instruction in the faith.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
[...] fellow Wikiklesia editor and author, John LaGrue wrote this importat push back over at microclesia, where I saw Steve Knight had linked to his [...]
February 15th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
JMM, good analogy – papyri as virtual proxy.
Hi Peg
Steve, I think a lot of this has to do with the tension of passivity v. engagement. If virtual community becomes a form of entertainment, we stumble into that place that Shane characterizes as “broad and shallow” – like T.V. viewing, etc.. But my experience with the virtual ecclesia (hence the name of this blog) is just the opposite. I am -more- engaged with people and ideas than ever before. I am -more- exposed to a broader range of thinking, and hence better able to form better opinions, and to have those opinions challenged. But perhaps most importantly, virtual interaction creates greater MOTIVATION to DO something beyond simply talking. This micro-ecclesia opens up a grand vista of new ideas and opportunities rarely expressed or experienced in local-physical interaction. We need both physical and virtual resources.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Hi John, some helpful thoughts here. And okay, here are my thoughts, since you invited response: I spent a few hours thinking and writing about this today, and decided to post something here rather than at the site of origin for the video clips. After all, you’re part of my “virtual community” and Out of Ur isn’t, and I didn’t want to create ironies that were just too delicious and would overdosed the unwary! Sorry for the wordiness, I just ran outta time to edit. (Then again, editing might have made it even worse!) [P.S. Shane sounds like very insightful on technology issues generally, and I look forward to reading his work sometime.]
The concepts and practices of forging community are critical for disciples, and Shaneâs four points for defining community create a helpful set of baseline principles. However, I think his overall system is flawed.
From a culturologist perspective, Iâd suggest that any one of Shaneâs four points could serve as a gateway that draws particular types of people toward community â shared identity, permanence (i.e., a sense of covenant, and I donât mean the legalistic kind), proximity, and shared imagination of the future. The gateways include the fourth, which he says is the one most easily found online.
Agreed. But is it possible there are some complex dynamics to note, and that it might truly be possible to build community starting from a virtual connection, and that we just need a longer period? My hunch is we need another 5 to 10 years at least to watch how the variety of virtual âcommunitiesâ develop, see whether any adopt all four elements over time, and discern what common features those groups demonstrate.
As a trained futurist, I know how hard it is to work in a group or church toward the fourth element of shared imagination of the future. In fact, I have to wonder if a large percentage of dechurchification occurs precisely from peoplesâ dashed hopes for a SHARED future. How often has the possibility of real community in church been preempted by toxic theologies that quench hope and/or by self-willed âleadersâ who hijack the group for personal purposes? Between 40 to 50 percent of all searches that lead to my main blog relate to recovery from spiritual abuse. This is a huge issue in the North American church, and I expect weâll see even more people leave local churches because of it, and at least some of them attempt to start up something online.
My hunch is that at least some onliners are there because theyâve been blocked from making any contributions locally, and where else is there for them to go? They arenât just slackers, in fact, itâs often quite the opposite. So, maybe weâll see some vibrant, long-term non-local but virtually proximate âthingsâ happen where there is a shared sense of identity and destiny in a covenant relationship. But we need to give it some time.
And, from the perspective of organizational systems research and development, we need to make sure in the meantime that our metrics for evaluating ârealâ community are valid for all kinds of community. I have my doubts about Shaneâs approach being able to do that. His appears to be a âbounded setâ system with definitions that pre-exclude virtual community. So, it cannot measure the âcentered setâ systems that so many virtual networks/communities seem to use in their development.
This is the same debate that is happening over how to measure the effectiveness of the missional movement. The successometer of the traditional bounded-set approach by counting additional converts is not an equivalent system to the missional centered-set approach of geometric progression that comes from discipling disciples who disciple more disciples. Itâs the same old apples-versus-oranges issue, and unless someone comes up with a valid system of measurement for all fruit, the debate about âactual communityâ and âvirtual communityâ will never more than just another serial monologue.
Finally, as a missional disciple, Iâm involved with three virtual networks where I have regular interaction URL with about a dozen people, and anything from intermittent to no interaction IRL (In Real Life). I experience some significant and mutual support with the people in these virtual connections, and I can see most of us connecting the rest of our lives. So, maybe weâll all want to check back and talk in 5, 10, 20+ years and find out how communal these virtual networks have become. If none still exist, or if there is no shared identity or covenant or future, I guess Shaneâs system was correct. But if at least some virtual networks are thriving, then it is possible to start with a shared imagination of the future â even if found with a URL group instead of an IRL group â and build virtual community.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
So very interesting how we all often hear something different in what person says. I understood that Shane was making the exact argument that virtual community is not a substitute for physical community when it comes to Jesus followers gathering. Wasn’t the context of his comments Second Life? I didn’t hear anything in his comments that would lead me to believe he was rejecting technology as a way to enhance our shared community experience.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Rick, I hope Shane joins the conversation to clarify some of this. His position is pretty clear when he says,
“…virtual community of any kind is one without the other…we’ve radically altered the definition of the one, so, it’s virtual but it ain’t community… It’s dangerous to use the word ‘community’ to describe [virtual community]…don’t call it community because it isn’t.”
Shane’s position falls apart under examination.
I resonate with his definitions of community (as did Brad) — “shared history, a sense of identity and belonging, shared memories and permanence, proximity to create meaningful connections, shared imagination of the future, etc..” — but disagree strongly that virtual community lacks such elements.
Later, he relates Second Life to disembodied evangelism. I’m not a fan of SL, and have no comment on that (I don’t have enough time for my First Life, let alone a Second Life).
February 15th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I’d like to see him join also, since I share some need for clarification. If he is indeed speaking of “any type” of virtual community (as opposed to a “virtual church”) I would agree that his conclusions are flawed. Have you invited him over?
[YES, JL]
February 16th, 2009 at 2:17 am
I found Shane’s four components to be the real value of his short dialog. They helped me create distinctions that describe so much of what we’ve been experiencing at Thrive.
But I would suggest that the distinction of virtual was actually perfect in regards to community. I personally love the interactions I have with those I meet online. They can to an extent have all four components. But I wonder if my perception of these relationships is virtual in a sense. They are less that I imagine.
But I have never in any way experienced the depth that comes from my own human tribe.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
[...] Yesterday John LaGrou sent me a link to an interview with Shane Hipps at the NPC. Shane is making an argument based on the dialogical nature of media, “we create the media then the media creates us.” To me this is an important insight, derived originally from the Canadian analyst and author Marshall McLuhan. However, what Shane does with this argument is spin off some ideas that are difficult to defend. John has his own response posted HERE. [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
[...] Some dialog on the subject can be found here, here and [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
[...] Yesterday John LaGrou sent me a link to an interview with Shane Hipps at the NPC. Shane is making an argument based on the dialogical nature of media, âwe create the media then the media creates us.â To me this is an important insight, derived originally from the Canadian analyst and author Marshall McLuhan. However, what Shane does with this argument is spin off some ideas that are difficult to defend. John has his own response posted HERE. [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
First, I couldn’t be more jealous that you spoke at TED. Well done.
Second, little did I know that my playful, unplanned, and hyberbolic rhetoric would become such fodder for beautiful, premeditated, textual analysis in so many places. Indeed, I was hardly attempting nuance. Spontaneous oral speech is ill suited to such content. It sucks the life right out of it.
Third, I agree with all of your critiques, save one. You said” Look.. I donât know anyone who would argue that virtual community is a substitute for physical community.” I do. There is a growing legion of young people who can scarcely tell the difference. There is a subsequent rift emerging between parents and teens because of this very issue. It will only become more complex in the years to come. Just doing my part to help people identify what they intuitively know but don’t have words for.
Fourth, I’m posting a response to Scott McKight’s response to my video shortly if it interests you.
Fifth, thanks for your virtual love. I look forward to meeting you.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Thanks for the input Shane. I ordered your book – will read it and hope to pen a review. And will be looking for your reply to Scot at Out of Ur: (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2009/02/scot_mcknight_o.html)
p.s., yes, speaking at TED was one of the most exhilarating experiences of my life. I was so excited that I fumbled some stats at the beginning of my talk, but got focused and did OK after that.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:27 am
[...] only a fraction of what face to face community provides. You can read discussions on the clip here, here, here, and here. So the video above is Shane’s response and clarification of his [...]
February 17th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Shane said, “[L]ittle did I know that my playful, unplanned, and hyberbolic rhetoric would become such fodder for beautiful, premeditated, textual analysis in so many places. Indeed, I was hardly attempting nuance. Spontaneous oral speech is ill suited to such content. It sucks the life right out of it.”
Well, I think I’m guilty of some of the suck-the-life-outta-it, for which I’m sorry. I think I spun into analysis mode and overassumed your view was only what you presented – not a good assumption ever, actually. And part of my response came out of my own context of frustration with trying to help groups develop “systems” so they can deal with the bigger issues of community.
Anyway, you make a good point about some in younger generations not being able to discern what community is. But, being raised with all this social media and such, their mindset is likely to build in a very different starting point-of-reference for the meaning of community. Their trajectory toward the Kingdom will come in at a different angle from ours, even though they need to arrive at the same goal.
Glad the internet and virtual everything did not catch God by surprise. Now we gotta figure out how best to address it …
February 20th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
[...] of other people apparently:Â Scot McKnight Responds; Tony Jones Responds; Steve Knight Responds;Â Microclesia Responds; Martin Kelley also responded with his own YouTube [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
[...] in fact. I give a personal example of how physical and virtual presence compliment and synergize, here. Moreover, I see in my son’s tribe an emerging integration of physical and virtual. One has [...]