word_made_virtual

The Word made virtual Kate Boardman

Assessed essay submitted to the Diocese of Durham Council for Ministry, February 2008 1

The Word made virtual:

some thoughts on mission and ministry in an online world

Introduction

The Church is dying.1 The 'vicar-shaped ministry' of the last half a century is no

longer a successful or sustainable model for today's priests and people. There is a

need for radical change, re-shaping, re-modelling, re-thinking, re-energising the

Church, its ministry and its existence in order to be re-born for the next generations.

To know what one doesn't know is the first step in changing for the better. The

decade of evangelism and the increase of 'fresh expressions' of church are beginning

to open up avenues for exploration in bringing God back to His people and the

people to God. Recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his support of the

need for a 'mixed economy' recognises that we are in a period where we must

explore many new possibilities for being and doing church in order to respond to the

context of our 21st century society. A period where we – remaining mindful of those

unwilling to embrace swift change – see the opportunities and rise to the challenges

posed by today’s society, and respond in faith.

This essay examines arguably the most powerful phenomenon of the modern age –

the internet – to consider the impact new technology has had on society and if it can

help or hinder the Church.

Changes in society

England's pre- and post-war society was a stable entity, where one's life could be

mapped out with a degree of certainty. Remaining in the village or town where one

was born, maintaining a 'job for life', marrying a local boy/girl, bringing up well-

disciplined children in a Christian environment, knowing the neighbours, socialising

locally with them and with family nearby, quietly respecting the teacher, doctor,

policeman and priest. Today's society could hardly be more different. In today's

global world we move around, with work, with education, away from family, from

friends, moving perhaps a number of times, creating new relationships and networks

each time, and attempting to maintain these relationships with a greater or lesser

degree of success over time. Moving around loses the groundedness of living

somewhere where everyone knows you and your history, everything about your

present and can make a good guess about your future; it loses the shared history

and experience that characterises strong community, yet facilitates the breaking free

from inherited conventions, allowing the reinvention of self as people move and

begin afresh in new places. Public and private transport provision means that people

travel as a matter of course, to work, to shop and for social intercourse. The birth of

the internet exacerbates this, enhances the number, location and type of

1 Well, ok, maybe not all of it, but some of it. Cathedral congregations are on the up and there are some types of church that

are thriving, but many in the traditional, and parish environment are not. But that wouldn’t have made quite the same impact,

so bear with me here ☺



communities that we belong to. Similarly it affects the number, location and type of

churches that we attend.

The Church is dying. It caters to a population who do not know their neighbour, who

work 12 hour days plus commute to work, who unthinkingly drive up to 20 miles to

see friends, who buy online and get delivery or go to out-of-town shopping outlets

for convenience and who travel remarkable distances to attend a church which suits

their preferred worship style – if they attend at all. They stay in touch with their

friends by social networking, by email and community software. The verb 'to

facebook' is catching up with 'to text' in being the medium of connection between

friends – but does little but often replace deep and meaningful relationships? The

world is available 24/7 to them, and many of them are available 24/7 to the world.

This is the congregation the traditional church wishes to bring at an inconveniently

set time to an inconveniently cold and draughty building to hear, for some, an

inconvenient truth.2 Although many may feel that the internet has done much to kill

off real community, this post modern world revolves around technology and the new

society that it offers and supports, and it behoves every organisation to learn from it.

“I dare to summon the whole Church bravely to cross this new

threshold, to put into the deep of the Net, so that now as in the

past the great engagement of the Gospel and culture may show to

the world 'the glory of God on the face of Christ' (2 Cor 4:6). May

the Lord bless all those who work for this aim.”

--Pope John Paul II, January 24, 2002

Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 – opportunities online

Whilst in some areas one might feel that the Church of England is far from the

cutting edge of technological change, and the Catholic Church still further behind,

the as-ever perceptive comment by the last Pope reminds us that we should not and

can not disassociate our faith from the world around us or vice versa. From a small

group of researchers successfully connecting their computers together to share

results and ideas, the world wide web has become a mainstay of our daily life;

today’s younger generation does not recall a world without email.

A survey carried out in the United States in 2003 found that “64% of the nation’s 128

million Internet users have done things online that relate to religious or spiritual

matters”.3 In 2008, faced with ever declining church congregations and increasing

apathy, let us look afresh at the opportunities offered by the online: the internet,

social networking, mail lists and discussion fora and virtual worlds.

Web 1.0: the internet (static medium)

In the nineties a level of computer programming skills were need to create web

pages, not so anymore. The web as a publishing medium is vast, any group,

2 Shamelessly adapted from An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s masterpiece on how we look after God’s creation,

http://www.aninconvenienttruth.co.uk/ (2006)

3 Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2004



individual or organisation can maintain a website, publicly and globally available,

often for free. Type of use and quality of information ranges widely, but a presence

online offers easy access to many answers. At macro level, the Church of England

maintains a vast resource at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/, and a good starting

place for people enquiring into Anglicanism can be found at ‘Anglicans Online’

(http://anglicansonline.org).4 On a more local level, many softwares exist to help

communities represent themselves to their faithful and to visitors by a church

website.5 A website might simply be a provision of information which is little more

than can be found on the noticeboard in the churchyard, but which is visible to

anyone with an internet connection without walking out in the rain. But in the same

way that out-of-date, rather damp and dog-eared notices on a peeling noticeboard

give an impression of a parish pride past its prime, a website offers you the potential

to sell your community as you are. For regulars, it’s an opportunity to check times or

dates, for visitors/seekers to find out when the church is open, or what services

there are, for a young couple driving past looking for a perfect wedding opportunity

the chance to nail a sale…! The flexibility available in web publishing allows you to be

who you are. Appendix 2 offers two church websites as examples of what different

effects can be created with the same software.

Web 1.5: the internet (dynamic medium)

To successfully attract repeat visitors on a regular basis, a website needs to change,

to update. One of the most exciting developments of the web is from grey,

unformatted text to the easy inclusion of rich media. With the addition of RSS (really

simple syndication) not only can your website have changing content on it, visitors

can subscribe to directly receive updated information from it. This means that

sermons can be available online very quickly after a service (in text or in more recent

times audio format) – a rich source of information for those not yet brought into the

community, or those within who cannot attend services or wish to reflect on the

message and engage in a discussion about it which extends beyond the post-service

coffee. Appendix 3 shows two exponents of this.

Web 2.0: social networking

As it became easier to publish to the internet, a new generation of web use and web

users grew. Not only is web-publishing easier, but commonplace (not restricted to

geeks) and free, so reading and writing to the web is very much in the public domain.

the web is no longer a one way transmission of information, but a dynamic and

interactive exchange between many users. Chief among the ‘innovations’ of what is

often called ‘Web 2.0’ are a myriad of places for social networking to take place. The

web has come alive in a rich interactive community online, based around sharing –

posting, commenting, supporting, questioning, answering, nurturing, debating,

engaging… Social networking is the term given to the way that people spend hours

online making connections and developing relationships with friends they have and

4 A screenshot of their ‘Start Here’ questions page can be found as Appendix 1.

5 Church123 (http://www.church123.com) is one such software, which underpins the different websites seen in Appendix 2. In

addition to Church123 one can mention Church Director (http://www.churchdirector.com) and the Planning Center

(http://planningcenteronline.com/) for the facilitating of service teams and volunteers.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/

http://anglicansonline.org/

http://www.church123.com/

http://www.churchdirector.com/

http://planningcenteronline.com/



have not met in real life. Blogs (from web-log) are commonplace, anyone can share

ideas and invite comments and discussions to engage in asynchronous conversations

around the world. Two of the largest social networking sites are MySpace and

Facebook. ‘Religious Views’ is one of the standard information entries on social

networking profiles and although it invites (especially in Durham) the occasional

“excellent from my bedroom”, “yes, right over the cathedral” or “Lindisfarne’s quite

pretty”, the religious views field is present on many more profiles than perhaps the

current average congregational figures would suggest. Self-identification by groups

of people with like interests means that people can come together online through

something like Facebook in ways that might not be possible to do face-to-face, or

together in the kind of numbers that physical reality prevents. Appendix 4 shows a

Facebook profile and a glimpse at the kind of numbers of users who join faith or

faith-based groups.

Software entrepreneurs are not missing out on this either. MyChurch6, whilst

Facebook and MySpace allows to you develop relationships with people outside your

local area, encourages the same potential within a church community, allowing each

member of the community to create an individual profile with photos and personal

information as well as jointly contributing to event planning, calendars and

discussions. It may begin to recreate some of the ‘everyone knowing everything

about you’ that we feel has been lost since the post-war generation, but it may be

only a subset of the congregation who would use this type of website. On the one

hand, creating community in a Facebook scenario allows you to be some sort of

presence – salt and light – in the world, MyChurch is good for deepening the existing

ties within the local community. Instinctively one feels they may serve different

purposes, but it is entirely possible that a MySpace/Facebook style accessibility may

speak to the younger people not already in the church community. We should not

try to encourage them to leave the former for MyChurch accounts, as no doubt they

will want to keep their free choice of personal space, and indeed an aim of spreading

the Kingdom is not going to be achieved by drawing a boundary and separating

those who are ‘in’ from those who are not.

Web 2.01: online communities

A fully-fledged MyChurch space using all of its functionality, or a website which

includes rich opportunity for engaging in discussion, whether that be in forums for

general topics or life studies, or in blogs written by different members of the lay and

clerical teams which tempt and encourage reaction and reflection is becoming truly

an online community. Online communities have existed since the earliest days of the

internet (and before) and there are many well-established groups and mail lists still

going strong. Heidi Campbell gives an in-depth examination of how email community

developed in Exploring Religious Community Online.7 Although not existing separate

6 Appendix 4.3, Screen shot from MyChurch, http://www.mychurch.com.

7 Campbell, H. (2005) Exploring Religious Community Online. New York: Peter Lang Publishing

http://www.mychurch.com/



to each other, it is interesting to note Campbell defines ‘social networks’ and

‘spiritual networks’.8

Campbell’s in-depth and authoritative examination of religious communities online

provides assurance that such communities can be formed and can successfully

create close nurturing relationships; this is borne out by another Pew survey which

discovered that over 70% of internet users “engage in email exchanges with other

online group members several times a week”.9

Web 2.02: online churches

For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among

them.

--Matthew, 18:20

This essay is not the place to discuss what makes a ‘church’. But it would seem that

much of what Campbell experienced in her involvement in the Anglicans Online

discussion forums could very well be today described as online church. Perhaps to be

a church one requires some level of hierarchical organisation – some leader or

responsable above and beyond the list admin? Appendix 5 shows the different faces

of two online churches. These combine many aspects of web 1.0 and 2.0,

incorporating discussion forums and chat rooms, offering fellowship, worship and

ministry together. iChurch10

connects the virtual with reality, employing part-time

priests as ‘web pastors’, paid for by the Diocese of Oxford which backs iChurch. St

Pixels11

is interesting because they began with a 3D virtual church, but have since

changed to a discussion/chat format. St Pixels is sponsored by the Methodist Church,

so both these examples exist within and are extensions of our established church,

however they both have a wide and ecumenical community from around the

world.12

That they are both UK-based does not face us with the cultural question of

“yes, but that’s American, w/couldn’t happen here” – it can and is happening here.

(Do not fear, the Americans are doing it as well, Lifechurch.tv13

streams services

through their ‘internet campus’, where those at a physical distance can take part

online via chat rooms and pre-prepared content along with a live webcast of a choice

of pastor and worship band.)

Perhaps the difference between online Christian community and online church is

also a question of the structured delivery of worship. Worship is discussed more

8 My emphasis.

Careful discussion of each/both would represent another paper, but it is interesting to keep the ‘distinction’ –

if distinction it is – whilst reading the rest of this essay. It is not quite possible to equate ‘social network’ with ‘fellowship’ and

‘spiritual network’ with ‘ministry’ or ‘worship’, nor to define here whether one can exist without the other or whether both are

needed to ‘succeed’…

9 Horrigan, John B. ‘Online communities. Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties’. Pew Internet &

American Life Project. 2001. [retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/47/report_display.asp Jan 21st, 2008]

10 iChurch: http://i-church.co.uk/

11 St Pixels: http://www.stpixels.com/ Appendix 5.3 shows screenshots of the St Pixels virtual church; brief answers to some

questions can be found about the virtual church at http://www.churchoffools.com/got-questions/index.html and a more

detailed history at http://www.stpixels.com/view_page.cgi?page=discover-tour-community

12 See the iChurch map http://www.phil-wright.net/ichurch/map.jpg for where iChurch’s congregation are from.

13 http://www.lifechurch.tv/

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/47/report_display.asp

http://i-church.co.uk/

http://www.stpixels.com/

http://www.churchoffools.com/got-questions/index.html

http://www.stpixels.com/view_page.cgi?page=discover-tour-community

http://www.phil-wright.net/ichurch/map.jpg

http://www.lifechurch.tv/



below. Certainly it is clear that ministry is happening, virtually tangible around the

world.

Web 3.0: virtual worlds

Online church – virtual church? Online is real, people are in communion with each

other. Virtual is only the medium. What’s next? The next thing in online technology

is virtual worlds, where sophisticated virtual reality softwares construct a 3D

environment – landscapes, buildings, weather, scenery, furniture, possessions – in

which cartoon or life-like characters (avatars) interact. In ordinary computer games

there are a set of pre-defined rules within which one ‘plays’; in a virtual world there

are none such. All the world’s a stage and each avatar (or, more correctly stated,

each avatar’s human animator) plays its own part in conducting the action and

creating the ‘reality’, moving around the environment and communicating via text

chat. World of Warcraft14

is perhaps one of the best known virtual worlds, although

more specifically is a world for role-play – a massively multiplayer online role-playing

game (MMORPG), within which there are goals to achieve and rules to play by,

rather than a world simply to exist and wander about in. Previously – and still –

popular are The Sims,15

a virtual world of characters where you can truly ‘play God’

to organise how your Sims live and interact with each other. Other incarnations

include Habbo Hotel,16

a teenage environment that the NSPCC17

and Drugs

Awareness18

campaigns use for effective mission, but in which there are no churches

or chapels. However the most popular virtual world today is Second Life.

Web 3.01: Second Life

Virtual worlds are increasingly in use by educationalists, providing a wealth of

opportunities for students. One of the most famous creations in Second Life is for

nursing students who can enter a sim (simulated environment) which takes over

their avatar and shows you what it is like to have schizophrenia. It’s a very powerful,

not to mention disturbingly real [learning] experience.

The educational benefits of Second Life are only a tiny part of the current usage.

Twelve and a half million people log in to hang out, to go dancing, to attend talks or

visit virtual exhibitions, to explore recreated wonders of the world, world-famous

buildings or even step inside paintings (such as Van Gogh’s Starry Night). Second Life

has its seedier side too. An adults-only environment, among its highest-hitting sites

are sleazy nightclubs and strip joints. The world in microcosm, it cannot but be

considered a rich field of opportunity for mission and ministry.

Second Life is an interesting mixture of surreal accommodations and minutely

detailed replicas of real buildings,19

often located right next to each other. The

14 http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/

15 http://thesims.ea.com/

16 http://www.habbo.co.uk/

17 See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6404231.stm for more information.

18 See http://www.talktofrank.com/article.aspx?id=254 for more information.

19 See Appendix 6 for pictures of the Sistine Chapel in Second Life.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/

http://thesims.ea.com/

http://www.habbo.co.uk/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6404231.stm

http://www.talktofrank.com/article.aspx?id=254



Anglican Cathedral (here is not the place to take its builder to task on the definition

of a cathedral) is a beautifully impressive gothic granite, perched atop a plateau on

an island all of its own. Not a direct copy of any cathedral in particular but similar to

many, it is this church which has become home to the Anglicans in Second Life

community.20

Here there are now 5 services and 2 bible studies each week, and a

growing community of believers from around the Anglican Communion.

As well as the copying of reality to its infinite detail, Second Life also allows the

builder to be free. Normal real life rules of engineering and gravity do not apply, it

isn’t cold and it doesn’t rain (though you can put down a beautiful layer of snow and

have sparkling snowflakes). At the Danske Folkekirke,21

the prayer room/chapel is an

airy, part open space in a magically peaceful and prayerful corner of a lush garden,

with cushions instead of pews or chairs. As important as the ‘church’, and similar to

real life, there is also a lovely space for fellowship, in this case an open air café area

with a table dispensing seasonal goodies – coffee and delicious cake in summer or

hot rum toddies in winter. New to the church island recently is a cosy room with two

big armchairs and a notice telling you if the priest is online for a chat. Pellegrina, the

priest, is a priest in real life too. The care with which this space has been created

whilst making the most of the virtual potential is incredible, and the serenity of it

very moving. 22

Here you can find out about the Danish Church, talk to the priest if

she is online, chat companionably to others, or just admire the view with a coffee.

Here though, incontestably, you feel the presence of God. The Danish Church is a

perfect place for Second Life residents, Danish or otherwise, to come and find some

peace and refreshment if they do not wish to set foot in a real life church.23

However,

Pellegrina’s increased presence at the site begins to open up more avenues for

ministry.

Identity, anonymity and ethics – problems posed online

Ubiquitous though technology may be for the younger generation, many people still

fear the internet, from ignorance, or with very good reason. The previous sections of

this essay have shown some of the ways that the web may be used; however all of

these areas have shadows to be taken into account as well. Some issues that must

be considered when using the web, social networking and virtual worlds follow.

There are, in general, no answers, it is a case of simply being mindful of them.

20 See Appendix 7 for illustrations of the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life.

21 See Appendix 8 for illustrations of the Danish Folkekirke in Second Life.

22 Second Life can have its uses for more apparently mundane yet important things. Building unconstrained means that you

can try different things out and get a feel for how they work – not just removing a roof that is impossible in real life but to

experiment with layouts, with chairs/pews/scatter-cushions, with moving virtual walls, altars, or creating small group rooms

within a larger space. The kind of mental play that a vicar wanting to renew worship in a parish may lie awake at nights

dreaming of.

23 According to Pellegrina Shepherd, the Danish priest, there is, seemingly, much disillusionment with the Church of Denmark

at present and many people have turned their back on attending.



The internet as an information medium is perfect for unchurched ‘seekers’ or

followers of another religion who are curious or studious to search for answers or

ask questions in a safe and anonymous fashion. However, whether they receive

‘right’ answers or not is a matter of judgement and evaluation: the internet is a

publishing medium open to all and a religious enquirer must use their own faculties

to distinguish between reliable information and twisted or biased content. Many

novice or inexperienced users of the internet find it difficult to judge whether a

website is a professional, reliable source of information; with the read-write web a

sense of authority has diminished. Thus alongside the excellent resources provided

by the Church of England and Anglicans Online, one finds www.demonbuster.com.24

This example demonstrates why one would probably prefer that a seeker of

information or support from faith might take their questions to a real person. One

might prefer it, but there may be a chasm of personal history, context or location

that prevents them doing so in the flesh. Is there scope for online personal contact,

ministry and/or mission to bridge this gap? What damage is done to those who find

themselves at demonbuster.com, and what can be done to un-do that damage?

With church websites, we note that first impression was everything. The church

website allows would-be visitors to gain a feel for the community they are entering,

and to perhaps feel a little more comfortable in unfamiliar surroundings and

traditions. Again, one hopes that this provision of information would lead to a real

meeting, that people will be drawn in to the community. However, the webmaster

must be on his guard, for remiss it may be not to have a site at all, what damage

does a bad site do? The consumer-driven society of today does not linger on a bad

website, but moves to another – a factor which should be taken into account. How

clear, how careful, how ‘real’ is the message sent out by your website? If a visitor

reads your website, decides your community is not for them, are they selecting on

an untrue reflection of you? Would they think differently if the website had not

existed and they had had to visit the church itself – would they have then reacted

differently? But then would they have actually visited the church itself? Does the

website draw in more than it puts off? Does the church draw in more than it puts off?

From the home pages of the two churches shown in Appendix 2, what do they say

about the tradition, the people, the community, the values, the faith expressed there?

Social networking communities have much to offer, these spaces can surely develop

bonds of community and strengthen existing networks; but they may as easily

appear as a closed group of people to an outsider as an open and welcoming group.

Might a concept of ‘too much information’ here in fact not put a seeker at ease, but

create a perception of being visibly the stranger in the group if they turned up in

person? And again, does the image projected reflect the reality of the community?

At the same time as saying it is almost unfathomable for a church not to have a web

presence, basic or interactive, context is everything:

24 No comment need realistically made beyond what one may assume from the address of this page. I would not like to spoil

the surprise waiting for an unwitting visitor, save to say that it is worth visiting to display all that is potentially harmful about

the internet… (and beware your volume levels).

http://www.demonbuster.com/



“I think one of the reasons our church (HarmonyGreenville.com) is so

"2.0" is because we have to be: we're in a college town that is

progressive when it comes to technology. We have city-wide wi-fi in

the downtown area, and our university, of course, has campus-wide

wi-fi. There are macs everywhere, and everyone knows the ins and

outs of Youtube, mySpace, Facebook, and Twitter. Flickr is huge.

Last.fm is huge. In fact, I installed Flock just so I could keep up with all

the tools our people use. That being said: if I were in a different

cultural context, say rural South Dakota, I would not have to involve

technology (especially web tech) with our church on the level we do

now.”25

In social networking, as well as with online communities, there is an interesting

tension between thinking relationships are developed to a depth not necessarily

found in today’s society, and the fact that although perceived to be deep, these

relationships are also as likely to be broader but only surface deep. It is common for

close friends to think that the person portrayed in a social networking/online

environment is very much the person that they know; often this is because they do

know the person so well that they impose their knowledge of the person onto the

persona that they are portraying. Identity is the biggest uncertainty online.

Who are these people you communicate with? Are they as they seem in real life? We

reflected at the beginning of this essay that the frequency of travel and moving

creates the possibility for people to effectively re-invent themselves – are they re-

inventing themselves when they leave a small community where everyone knows

them and spread their wings – dye their hair pink, get studs/tattoos, turn Goth,

come out as gay… – or are we then seeing the real them that they have become?

How do we ever really know what is real? Do we connect with the real people via the

online medium, or do we connect with the person someone really wants to be (or

fancifully feels like being)? Do we create a persona online deliberately, or

accidentally? Or is the persona we display online simply a different reflection of our

personality anyway, just as your work colleagues might perceive you differently from

your friends. Of course we connect with real people – there is a real person typing a

forum response, acting behind an avatar. There may be the potential for people to

dispense harmful advice or information because you cannot see that they do not

wear a collar in real life – but do you ever really know who you are dealing with in

real life too? There is a good discussion in understandable language on the

psychology of cyberspace at www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html

which implies that one needs to pay the greatest of attention to much existing

knowledge and research before even attempting to answer – or even consider in

depth – the questions just posed here.

One fear about providing church and community online is: is it enough? Does it fulfil

a need for some people which then stops them coming to real life church? This

25 Derek Brown, posted Nov 24, 2007

in a Facebook discussion topic entitled ‘Remembering Cultural Context When Thinking

Technology’

http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html

http://dur.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5831513553&topic=3610

http://dur.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5831513553&topic=3610



question should say ‘which stops them physically coming to church, or being part of

their local community? No-one proposes that online church could or should replace

meeting physically face-to-face. Services and sermons on the web let you connect

with at least some of the what you are missing, and for people who cannot or

perhaps are not yet ready or willing to come physically to church they can be a

gentle way back. Heidi Campbell found in her research that the community was very

real, but someone gave an example of where the online community fails:

“[…]recounted the story of a family she knew who lost their home

and a child in a fire. At that moment emailing words of

encouragement was not enough. “They needed people who could

physically put their arms around them and cry with them”. While

grateful people around the world were praying for them, “When

you’ve just lost a child, it’s hard to be comforted online.”26

This is a tragic and perhaps extreme example, however some comfort – support –

ministry is easily given and received online. On a social networking site like Facebook

many people regularly update their ‘status’, giving an instantly visible feed to friends

or other users. It is surprisingly easy to get a sense of the general well-being of

people, and easy to respond with a sympathetic gesture or message.

“[…]current status … a very interesting observation was that I

changed my status one day to … Really busy, leave me a message to

cheer me up …. And wow lots of people did, I got audio, text and

videos. This was really surprising it is indicates the status could be a

very subtle tool, perhaps even acting as a replacement for body

language / mood indicates. In other words the people behaving (sic)in

the virtual as they do in physical networks.”27

Is it possible to minister to someone without being face-to-face?28

Ministry can and

does clearly happen online. Some people find that unburdening themselves to a

complete stranger easier than to someone who knows something of them, or in a

situation where they cannot hear or see pity, incomprehension or judgement in their

hearer’s voice or face. Either way one should be able to expect a genuine empathy

from your listener. That you can successfully build and develop trusting and fruitful

fellowship is evidenced by the success of online churches iChurch and St Pixels. But

in general we must still be cautious about the potential harm done to vulnerable

people by engaging with someone who you do not really know, not know who or

what they are, or their own agendas. Mission can also clearly happen online through

these communities and fellowships. In exploring the potential, it is also clear that

worship happens online. Worship was not explicitly mentioned in the title of this

essay, but it is necessary to discuss it.

26 Campbell, H. (2005) Exploring Religious Community Online. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, p. 163

27 From Andy Ramsden’s blog: http://andyramsden.blogs.ilrt.org/2007/09/13/facebook-1-week-in-some-thoughts/

28 Indeed it is. Take the reference to Paul (Romans 1:11) in a sermon from the St Pixels virtual church, full text appears as

Appendix 9.

http://andyramsden.blogs.ilrt.org/2007/09/13/facebook-1-week-in-some-thoughts/



Mission, ministry and worship

This essay offers a very brief glance at many of the potential uses of the online world

in which we live. There are also many challenges, but there are challenges in all of

life and life is about weighing those risks and stepping out in faith.

This essay is entitled some thoughts on mission and ministry. It should more rightly

be entitled thoughts on mission, ministry and worship, because of the difficulty of

defining and separating them. Christopher Moody’s Eccentric Ministry29

makes it

clear that you cannot separate mission and ministry – the one does not exist without

aspects of the other. Offering pastoral care is an element of mission, even to an

already-committed Christian. Taking the Word out onto the street, into a pub is

showing, offering, sharing God’s love in ministry. This happens in many of the

examples of internet use touched on in this essay, a combination of mission and

pastoral ministry. But ministry encompasses more than pastoral care, it also implies

the performative, and it is not possible to examine potential value and challenges

online without also discussing the more public performance of ministry in worship.

Is it possible to enact worship online? In exploring this, it is clear that online

potential extends beyond social networks to spiritual networks as well. Fellowship

exists within online communities and they do come together in worship. Not in all

worship. Cultural or denominational differences begin to split people’s views. For

LifeChurch.tv, their service/worship is wholly centred on the pastor talking for 40

minutes, after a praise band opening and the collection of monies. This can be

relatively easily translated – streamed – onto the web (and indeed also Second Life).

Nothing is necessarily missed out of this worship experience, and although it may

not be entirely correct to assume the spiritual experience to be the same as being

present in a physical campus, nothing is ‘missing’ from the virtual campus.

Move to an Anglican setting, however, and the full experience can not be shared.

Here the participants gladly come to a morning prayer service or to Compline, but

there is no Eucharist. People come together virtually into the fellowship of Christ but

they simply cannot share in the one bread and one cup. Sacramental worship does

not take place at iChurch or St Pixels, nor in Second Life.30

One might expect it more

likely to be discussed about churches in Second Life, where the visual appearance

offers a quite different experience to services held through text chat windows. But

would even asking the questions out loud be just bad taste, or should scholars,

theologians, ministers, online congregations and would-be online communicants

look to wrestle with the concept?31

It is common to identify with the avatar whose

actions you direct; many people take their avatars to sit quietly in a church for a few

29 Moody, C. (1992). Eccentric Ministry. London: Darton,Longman & Todd Ltd

30 There has been a thread discussing virtual symbols and sacraments on the St Pixels website over the recent weeks. Appendix

10 brings together those comments posted particularly about online communion, from

http://www.stpixels.com/view_page.cgi?page=discuss-reflect-rtchurch-rites.

31 St Pixels have, see previous note.

http://www.stpixels.com/view_page.cgi?page=discuss-reflect-rtchurch-rites



minutes’ peace in a busy day, perhaps to pray, perhaps to say prayer during the day

or perhaps just for the sense of stillness that tends to come over you looking at a

screen where your avatar is peaceful.32

Is it un-theological, sinful, incomprehensible

to ask how people would feel about lining their avatars up to receive virtual

communion? Would it just be the avatars partaking, or would something more

profound happen? Is it too deep a psycho-social question of how people relate to

their avatars, or is it just deeply blasphemous and offensive, for many belittling the

sacrament? Prayerfully and sensitively done, might it in some small way offer a

powerfully poignant moment for someone who for whatever reason cannot or will

not go to a ‘real life’ church, a moment that might open a rich vein of much needed

pastoral ministry and healing? Or does it risk making physical attendance at a real

life church even at least for sacramental worship an optional factor in being a

Christian, reducing the mystery of the Eucharist to ducking in online in between

answering emails and considering that sufficient ‘duty and service that we owe’?

It may seem that we are far from such a concept as online communion, especially for

ourselves and not our avatars, and yet this is exactly what has been happening

courtesy of Revd. Gregory S. Neal since 2003.33

His articulate defence,34

grown out of

his own incapacity and attendant sense of loss in not being able to partake in

communion services is, if not wholly persuasive, at least merits discussion.35

It is a

theological discussion. How far does the grace of God reach? Must the host be under

the hands of the president at consecration (the argument of additional

chalices/plates for use at differing communion stations of a large building)? How

much of the Eucharist requires some performative involvement? Must the concept

simply be rejected out of hand depending on where you stand on transubstantiation?

Hasn’t this discussion been happening since the beginning of televised/radio

broadcast religious services – what if you bring your piece of bread near to the

TV/radio/PC? What if you have not just bread and wine but pre-consecrated and pre-

packaged wafer and wine (so-called “sip’n’dips”36

)? Does this remove the question of

consecration, but still leave a bad taste in the mouth? In this case, is it not preferable

– to someone house- or hospital-bound – to be able to engage in the pretence of

partaking with a multitude of others, albeit in a different location, rather than on

one’s own? Obviously, many more questions than answers, and as the discussion at

St Pixels made clear, many many individuals with their own thoughts, beliefs and

sensitivities.

32 This may be religious, or may not. See Appendix 11 for some examples.

33 Online Communion: http://www.revneal.org/media/video/holycommunion2.ram

34 “Online Communion Theology” http://www.revneal.org/Writings/onlinecommunionremarks.html

35 Interestingly, Revd. Neal is a Methodist minister, so should perhaps refer back to A United Methodist Understanding of Holy

Communion (http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/), “Both "self-service" Communion, where people help

themselves, and "drop-in" Communion, where the elements are available over a period of time, are contrary to the communal

nature of the sacrament, which is the celebration of the gathered community of faith” at

http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/communityextends.html and further at

http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/elements.html

36 http://www.lifewaystores.com/lwstore/product.asp?isbn=0805471197

http://www.revneal.org/media/video/holycommunion2.ram

http://www.revneal.org/Writings/onlinecommunionremarks.html

http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/

http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/communityextends.html

http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/elements.html

http://www.lifewaystores.com/lwstore/product.asp?isbn=0805471197



Conclusions

These last questions have brought us far from the need for a basic web page. The

range of opportunities for being and doing church – engaging in mission, ministry

and worship online is vast; almost as wide as in ‘real’ life. Indeed there are issues:

with mission, the integrity of the message; with ministry, the integrity of the

personalities (on both sides of the exchange); with worship, the integrity of the

theology, the practical working out of sacramental ministry. The ‘Fresh Expressions’

initiative37

includes many people looking to revitalise the church experience – luckily

not a few of them are engaging with being and doing church online.

Revitalising the church experience. We may still wish to live out our model of being

church by holding Sunday morning services, but what are we doing to mitigate the

inconveniently cold Truth at the inconvenient time? Frost and Hirsch make it clear

that to survive – and hopefully find how to prosper again – we must move from an

attractional model to an incarnational one.38

Instead of continuing the fading status

quo, to bring Christ back to His people, and the people back to Him, we have to take

Him to the people. To get out there and engage with the way that they live today;

the way that they work, form communities, network, organise their lives and want to

worship. We have to realign the Church of today with society of today; show that we

still exist for and with the people in the real world, even when the ‘real’ world is the

‘virtual’ one. By engaging in the asynchronous chats and social networking and

investing in the skills that can put community events direct into people’s Outlook

calendars, we can get back not just into their consciousness but into their lives too.

The attractional model of expecting them to come to us on our terms at our times

has failed. By joining the 24/7-available population, we become available 24/7 to

them in a way that Church has not been for many years. By allowing and

encouraging blogs and prayer discussions we can perhaps learn a little more about

the individuals in our communities that otherwise we might be able to, and this is no

less likely to be the ‘real’ them than they present in person. We have so many

possibilities to connect online, to move towards being truly incarnational:

• to bring Church back to the centre of a community

• to encourage sharing and deepening of relationships

• to encourage people to get to know eachother and care for their neighbours

again

• to use asynchronous means to engage more people

• to try and put the building back in common/community use

• to bring the young people back (to host bands, perhaps!39

)

• to share favours/jobs/freecycling/babysitting

• to widen the community beyond the village/parish borders, by blogs (reading

and linking) and podcasts

• to keep open and available prayer boards, for all people as well as the Sunday

congregation, allowing anonymous requests

37 http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/

38 Frost, M. & Hirsch, A.. (2003). The shaping of things to come: innovation and mission for the 21st century church. Peabody

MA.: Hendrickson Publishers.

39 Reach the YouTube generation through YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OKhMSauxD4

http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OKhMSauxD4



• to open a discussion about options for being and doing church today…

We move ever forwards. The world has changed. Society has undergone

phenomenal change in the last fifty years. The Church has not kept up or kept its

place in that society. The Church as we know it is dying. The world is now an online

world. We must be a part of that. We must be salt and light in the real world, not the

world seen through the rose windows of an emptying church. To be a part of the

online world we need to be online. The Church must respond, must show that its

scripture, reason and tradition are not an inconvenient truth, but a warm and

welcoming Truth for today’s society; that it still can be a foundation for creating and

developing community, fellowship and faith into the net generation and beyond.

As we step “bravely [across] this new threshold, to put into the deep of the Net”, let

us show we can still be relevant fishers of men.

Our Father, who art in cyberspace,

Sticky be thy homepage.

Give us this day our daily web

(preferably via ADSL, although

56kb/s will do)

And forgive us our downloads,

As we forgive those who download unto us,

And lead us not into pornography,

But deliver us from spam

For thine is the mousemat,

The browser and the modem,

For ever and ever,

Amen

(anon)



Appendices



Appendix 1 Anglicans Online ‘Start Here’

Appendix 2 Church Websites

2.1 SS Peter and Paul, Kettering.



This website implies what it is, a respectable parish, a traditional church and church

community. The information provided is clear and easily accessible, the impression

given of good, solid, sensible… Nothing flash, nothing showy. I think it’s quite easy to

build a picture in your mind of the people who minister and worship here.

2.2 Queens (sic) Road Church, Wimbledon

This website implies a different community and a different style of worship; perhaps

even a more vibrant experience. The visual is bright and attracting, unconventional

and much more in keeping with professional web design around the internet.

More interestingly, the screenshot above was taken in January 2008, on revisiting

the site in February 2008, a new website design has been launched. Personally, I

prefer the old one ☺ The new one can be seen below.



Appendix 3: Sermon Feeds

3.1 Durham Cathedral

(and the main Durham Cathedral homepage):



3.2 Trinity Church Boston MA

(and the main Trinity Church homepage):



Appendix 4: Social Networking

4.1 Facebook Profile

4.2 Facebook Groups



4.3: MyChurch



Appendix 5: Online Churches

5.1: iChurch

(and an example of their prayer board):



5.2 St Pixels

5.3 St Pixels virtual church website http://www.churchoffools.com

St Pixels is a fascinating example as it started life as a 3D virtual church, a little like a

tiny crystallised location from Second Life. It was a three-month experiment by the

Methodist church, and the ‘church’ was eventually closed down in favour of the chat

room/discussion forum format after disturbances by badly-behaved users hijacking

services (existing and known as ‘griefing’ in Second Life)

http://www.churchoffools.com/



5.4 St Pixels virtual church

5.5 St Pixels members



Appendix 6: Second Life Sistine Chapel

The Sistine Chapel is located on the Vassar College campus. An information board

outside the Chapel not only requests that an avatar is appropriately dressed to enter

the [religious] building, it also tells you that there is, effectively, a type of

enchantment – a script triggered as you approach the door – which in fact refuses

entry to a visitor in a bikini. This reality check continues inside, where only a few

visitors are allowed in at one time to avoid crowding, and the ‘tapestries’ are

curtained and only revealed in part for a limited time to avoid over-exposure…

Better than real though, is the ability to control your view so that you can explore at

extremely close quarters the ceiling and the upper wall paintings. It is an experience

which can only make the visitor adamant to pack their real life bags and head for

Rome.



Appendix 7: Second Life Anglican Cathedral



Appendix 8: Second Life Danske Folkekirke

8.1 Chapel at sunrise

8.2 Chapel at night



8.3 Café

8.4 ‘Samtalrum’



Appendix 9: “I long to see you”, sermon preached at St Pixels

I long to see you

26 September 2004 – Steve Goddard, co-editor of Ship of Fools, preached

during an emotional final service before Church of Fools closed. His

theme: "I long to see you".

The reading was taken from the opening chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.Ever

noticed how Paul bearhugs readers at the start of his letters?

"I thank God in every remembrance of you," he writes to his close buddies in Philippi.

But here's the heavy deal. Even when he hasn't met the people he is writing to, in

this case the Romans, he still bigs it up. "I long to see you..." he says (Romans 1:11).

Never having met someone, not seeing them, not being physically with them,

doesn't imply lack of reality, depth and care as far as Paul is concerned.

Romans is one of the apostle's longest letters – 16 tortuous chapters – and he hasn't

even met the people he is writing to.

Ring any virtual bells?

Those clashes in the crypt with people you'll never set eyes on – from Manchester to

Minnesota, Malmo to Melbourne, maybe? Locking horns on everything from the

Pope to polygamy; offering advice to those in need; keying in the odd prayer or two

– and thinking as you log off: "I long to see those people I have never met."

Some observers have condescendingly patted us on the head. Their angle? Church of

Fools is a good effort but a poor substitute for the "real thing".

In many ways it is. An online church cannot dispense the sacraments. We can't

baptize, marry or bury our visitors – though, sometimes a tad gleefully, we can smite

them! But it offers people like Radalyn from Georgia a new, meditative window.

"COF is an oasis in my day," she admits. "I often leave my 'ghost' alone, kneeling at

prayer in the church while I work nearby." What a fascinating idea.

Meanwhile, another visitor, Mary, says: "Being anonymous allows me to be

outspoken about my faith and not judge people so quickly – something I would not

normally do." Wesley J told me yesterday: "Contact in the cyberworld has not led to

loneliness and despair. Exactly the opposite. I believe I am now more alive than I was

before."

So I believe many of us will wake up tomorrow morning and, though we have never

met each other in the flesh, will say, "We long to see you" – here again in the Church

of Fools.

And even to those who would try to wreck what we are doing... to the troll we say,

"We long to see you." To the hacker... "We long to see you." To the rager... "We long

to see you."

And to the regulars and first-timers – whether you're a distinguished grey beard, a

nerdy Ned, a carrot top, a pink slipper, or a shadowy ghost – you have built

something into all our lives through the Holy Spirit.

"We long to see you..." and thousands more like you – again. Soon.

May God grant us the means to make it happen.

http://www.churchoffools.com/read-sermons/17_goddard.html

http://www.churchoffools.com/read-sermons/17_goddard.html



Appendix 10: St Pixels communion discussion

For example, I would not have a problem with a St Pixels service that was based on a

Communion Service, with bread and wine, and if it was well led it wouldn’t bother

me if the leader was ordained or not. But some would have a big problem with this.

Whether it is necessary to have unanimous agreement I don’t know. There are many

real life liturgies though devised for ecumenical use, one very good source is a book

called ‘Take Bless Break and Share’ Maybe we coud use this to dip a toe in the water.

For sacraments online, I'm encouraged by this quote I found on a website: A

sacrament, administered properly in the way established by Christ and with the

proper intention, gives the grace it signifies. It is effective not by reason of the power

of intercession of priestly prayer nor on account of the worthiness of the recipient,

but solely by the power of Christ. The power of Christ lives in the sacraments. The

most positive form of sacrament I have found on St. Pixels has been, of course, the

prayer services. However, I do wish there were a healing service offered; I've found

these to be very powerful in the Episcopal Church.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Holy Communion online, simply because I believe

so wholeheartedly in the sanctification of the bread and wine by an ordained priest. I

do not take communion in other denominational churches for this reason, but again,

that's a reason of personal preference that may not be held by others here.

For those who consider communion a sacrament celebrated only by an ordained

priest you will always make them feel uncomfortable or, worse still, deeply offend

them. At best it would be a hollow mimicry, and at worst an insensitive parody of

something that is deeply important to them.

For most of those who don't value communion as a sacrament it would be a rather

meaningless ritual.

The very nature of communion makes it something which must be shared with

others. True, it is first a communion of spirit between the believer and God, but

Jesus designed it to be shared at a time when we are with others.

I believe the emblems need to be tangible since they are to be representative of

something real. Trying to do something virtual would need to be done with the

understanding that it was only symbolic of the real thing. In other words, I don't

think it would be "sanctioned", per se

The idea of virtual communion is as bizarre and surreal as most other things here.

Would I be sharing lunch with you in a real sense if we both ate our own butties

simultaneously at the PC?

I actually think that would be fine, Mark, as long as it was understood that it was not

being done as a true partaking of the body and blood (i.e. valid ) and that it should

not be considered a substitute for the real thing -- merely a symbolic gesture being

done to promote further unity within this body of people.

http://books.urc2.org.uk/item.asp?ItemID=162&CategoryID=5



Appendix 11: ‘being peaceful’

There are lots of places to sit awhile with your avatar, while you sit and pray, or think,

or rest and recuperate during your time online working or playing. Here are a few,

sacred and secular:



Selected Bibliography

Campbell, H. (2005). Exploring Religious Community Online: we are one in the

network. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Frost, M. & Hirsch A. (2003). The shaping of things to come: innovation and mission

for the 21st

century church. Peabody: Hendrickson Press.

Greenwood, R. (2002). Transforming Church: liberating structures for ministry.

London: SPCK.

Moody, C. (1992). Eccentric Ministry: pastoral care and leadership in the Parish.

London: Darton, Longman & Todd.

word_made_virtual

Spiritual

Transcript of word_made_virtual